Talk:Paxata/GA2

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

Reviewer: 23W (talk · contribs) 00:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi @user:23W. I figured you probably weren't logged-in over Christmas, so I wanted to check-in and make sure this was still on your radar. CorporateM (Talk) 19:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the wait. I'll try getting to this before the end of the week. 23W 09:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ugh, sorry for the wait—again. It probably wasn't a good idea for me to take these up during these busy times. I'll have something up soon. 23W 23:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem. Thanks for reviewing! CorporateM (Talk) 23:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Review (finally)

 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Comments

 * Gave a simple copy edit myself; click here to see the changes.
 * I also added a slew of wikilinks to the lead, which should help the layperson. Most of these are already present in the body, so it makes sense to introduce them here.
 * Although it was brought up in the previous review that the infobox required citations after each cell, it's probably overkill here. You could at least remove the references for information already present in the body of the article.
 * ✅ CorporateM (Talk) 23:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Searching through some of the lesser-known sources, they seem to meet WP:SOURCE standards of all having editorial oversight and being cited in other reliable third-party sources (used mainly Google News to search up articles containing the name of the source excluding the domain of said source).
 * This may be out of scope, but in the "Software" section, the references that are placed mid-sentence without any punctuation should probably be bundled for readability. I've attempted this in the code below; you would copy it from where the "Software" section begins to the end of the first paragraph:

 Paxata refers to its suite of cloud-based data quality, integration, enrichment and governance products as "Adaptive Data Preparation." The software is intended for business analysts, who need to combine data from a variety of sources, then check the data for duplicates, empty fields, outliers, trends and integrity issues before conducting analysis or visualization in a third-party software tool. It uses algorithms and machine-learning to automate certain aspects of data preparation. For example, it may automatically detect records belonging to the same person or address, even if the information is formatted differently in each record in different data sets.


 * ✅ CorporateM (Talk) 23:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Otherwise, good work. All problems brought up in the last review seem to be addressed. Putting on hold for 14 days. 23W 20:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks good! 23W 23:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)