Talk:Paxata/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 22:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I will review this article. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 22:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination
This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of September 29, 2014, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?: Unfortunately, writing is a bit choppy at times. Before another GA Review, could first use copy edit from people at WP:GOCE -- however wait til expansion from other recommendations in GA Review, below.
 * I'll take a look. CorporateM (Talk) 14:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Or maybe done? The copyediting looks fine to me, but I did add some wikilinks to terms that the user may be familiar with and added a couple missing commas. CorporateM (Talk) 14:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 2. Factually accurate?: Fails here. Info on everything in the infobox is uncited. This appears to include info on WP:BLPs.
 * ✅ I typically prefer to leave as few citations as possible for non-controversial information in the infobox, because having citations inside the square is rather unsightly and much of the information has references in the body of the article. The Lede does not require cites, but I am not sure if the infobox is considered part of the Lede. Oh well, it has cites now. CorporateM (Talk) 14:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: Fails here. First off, lede intro sect fails WP:LEAD, not a full concise summary of entire article contents -- appears to only be summary or even just restatement of History sect. Should be summary of entire article as a standalone summary so reader who just reads lede intro sect gets gist of entire article including other sects. History sect seems a bit sparse. Who founded it? Why? What was there motivation? From whom did they get the startup capital? Why were they in stealth mode for so long? What is stealth mode for the reader that doesn't know what stealth mode is? Much more context is needed here. Software sect is actually not too bad.
 * ✅ I expanded the Lede a little, but also hesitantly. Because it is a very small article, the Lede is now about one-quarter of the entire page! CorporateM (Talk) 14:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding the History section, the company has been out of stealth mode for less than one year, so naturally they do not have a very long or detailed history yet. I believe the section is adequate for describing just 1-2 years of history. CorporateM (Talk) 14:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * 4. Neutral point of view?: Pretty good here. Reception sect could be expanded a bit more -- hopefully with additional secondary sources, if there are some more out there about this company? I like how the Reception sect does actually include viewpoints from multiple different perspectives, that is a good sign going forwards.
 * I have included all the sources I have identified and my search was pretty comprehensive. Perhaps the Reception section could be expanded in the future as additional sources emerge, but I believe the current section is comprehensive based on currently available sources and that it covers all the major aspects. CorporateM (Talk) 14:34, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * 5. Article stability?: Article is indeed stable going back a few months in time. No issues upon inspection of article edit history, talk page, and talk page history.
 * ✅ Nothing to do here CorporateM (Talk)
 * 6. Images?: Fails here. (1) File:Paxata-screenshot.png has problem issues tagged at top of page that are not yet addressed. (2) File:Paxata logo.png problem issues tagged at top as well. Best way to resolve both ideally would be to get some statement confirmed via WP:OTRS, and ideally upload to Wikimedia Commons as free-use images, if possible. And/or just resolve those various image tags with additional explanations on the image pages, the image talk pages, and the article talk page.
 * 1. ✅ I have removed the flag. The flag seemed to have been making an assumption that I lied about the image's origins, saying that it says it is from an offline source, but it is most likely from an online source. This just isn't true. It was provided to me directly from Paxata, offline. The source information is correct. CorporateM (Talk) 14:37, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 2. The flag says "The usage of this non-free media on Wikipedia was previously under review for compliance". This is true and does not seem to indicate a problem with the image - just notes that it has been discussed. CorporateM (Talk) 14:37, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, not GA quality at this time, due to extensive issues on multiple points, above. Please feel free to renominate when you feel above issues are addressed. Good job on the NPOV in the Reception sect, however!!

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— &mdash; Cirt (talk) 13:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)