Talk:Renaissance Learning

Archives

 * Archive 1: February 2006: Criticism discussion. (This discussion is no longer applicable since the sections have been moved to the appropriate product pages.)
 * Archive 2: March 2006 - June 2006.

Start status
Can someone provide comments on why this article has "Start" status (see the box above)? I would like to help improve it, but I don't know what needs work. &mdash; Chris53516 (Talk) 05:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Renaissance Learning. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061030092701/http://www.eschoolnews.com:80/resources/surveys/editorial/rca/eSNOct06RCA.pdf to http://www.eschoolnews.com/resources/surveys/editorial/rca/eSNOct06RCA.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:33, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Absurd sources

 * was used as a source for the assertion that "Renaissance products have been tested". Anyone who had actually read the source would see that it says nothing whatsoever about the "testing" of Renaissance products. So I removed the bogus source.
 * is used as a source for the assertion that "Using the data from Accelerated Reader and Accelerated Reader 360, What Kids Are Reading highlights the books and nonfiction articles K–12 students read cover to cover each year." The cited source doesn't even mention What Kids Are Reading. So I removed the bogus source.
 * I'm not sure why Xb2u7Zjzc32 is repeatedly inserting random sources into the article that are completely unrelated to the content for which they're supposed to provide reliable support. It makes no sense. 32.218.35.117 (talk) 02:15, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Paid Edit
My most recent edit to the article was a paid edit. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 15:13, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

removed Templates concerning "advert, buzzword and COI"
This article is much too small for such criticisms. Of course nothing has changed since 2014, no one has added anything. Be bold and ask for article deletion, rather than these silly frivolous complaints that were made be people too lazy to do any of it themselves. Putting such templates up without any reach out or follow up is just vandalism with a sneer. It's easily foreseeable that no one is going to actually make substantial changes soon. If someone close to or within the company made edits, they certainly didn't add anything biased, uninformative or advertisement-like. And if the company does unpredictably well or poorly, the article will need informed contributers. Frankly I don't see any other way of significant contributions being made to the article. Cuvtixo (talk) 08:27, 6 November 2020 (UTC)