Talk:Reynolds and Reynolds/GA1

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

Reviewer: Ola.saurabh (talk · contribs) 06:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The article about a corporation is having all the basic details. The article has the links for verifiability and has no original research. The corporation is having about 4500 employees and had about $50 million in revenues, so it is notable. Moreover, the point of view do provide both ups and downs of the corporation and is so neutral point of view.

I support its nomination for Good Article

saurabh loves wiki (talk) 06:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

New reviewer requested by nominator, per WT:GAN. I am not giving a new review, but passing along the request. I agree with the nominator that the above was not an actual review and did not address any specified WP:GA?, nor did it follow WP:GAI. — Maile (talk) 20:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Second reviewerUser:CorporateM FallingGravity (talk) 04:25, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Lead

 * "won contracts with the largest automotive companies"? Sounds pretty promotional. However, if it is true, is it talking about the largest in the world, largest in the United States, or wherever?
 * ✅ Talking about clients is typically promotional, but sometimes it's meaningful when the company is largely associated with a particular industry, there are sources for it, there was a specific time-period where the association with the industry was developed, and that association is what made it a big company. I changed the language however. CorporateM (Talk) 18:12, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Early history

 * The phrase "was founded" is used twice in the first two sentences. You could probably just use something like "It was a small printing shop founded with $500..." for the second one.
 * ✅CorporateM (Talk) 18:05, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Cities should be linked (i.e. Celina, Ohio, Dallas, Texas etc.)
 * ✅ CorporateM (Talk) 18:05, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm confused about how it "expands into" Canada if it already had a facility there. Is it further expansion or something different?
 * The first sentence says "In the 1960s", then the second sentence elaborates with "In 1963" and more details about that particular country. CorporateM (Talk) 18:07, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Establishment of software business

 * The "In 2000 Reynolds also acquired the HAC Group..., in 2000," sentence.
 * ✅ CorporateM (Talk) 18:08, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Further developments

 * The section title seems misleading because it jumps back in time. I'd suggest adding a more descriptive section title. Maybe "Acquisitions" or "Business acquisitions"?
 * ✅ CorporateM (Talk) 18:15, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Who or what is Homes?
 * ✅ "David Holmes" from the prior section. I've fixed it. CorporateM (Talk) 18:14, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


 * General Motors, should be linked when first mentioned.
 * ✅ CorporateM (Talk) 18:08, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The Carlyle Group, should be linked.
 * ✅ CorporateM (Talk) 18:08, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Product history

 * "This caused 'a flurry of discussion in the automobile market.'" Which source is this quoting, or is it quoting both?
 * The quote itself is from the International Directory of Company Histories. Even when using quotes, I sometimes like to include useful supplementary sources that are on the same subject, provide similar information and support similar statements. The second source provides extra validation of the significance. CorporateM (Talk) 18:21, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Current software and services

 * "ERA and POWER suites of dealer management systems"? What does this mean?
 * That's what the products are called. CorporateM (Talk) 18:22, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

General notes

 * Contractions should be separated per MOS:CONTRACT.
 * ✅ CorporateM (Talk) 18:34, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Overall

 * Well written: Almost, but some text needs more clarifying and links per above. Yes, though I (the reviewer) have done some copy-editing.
 * Verifiable: Yes, though some more URLs could help.
 * Broad in its coverage: Yes.
 * Neutral: Almost, just need to clear up concerns about the "largest companies" mentioned in the lead. As far as I can tell.
 * Stable: Yes.
 * Images: The only image is the logo, which is tagged under fair use. It may qualify under Template:PD-logo, though I don't think it's a real issue.

Further discussion
Thanks so much for a thorough review !!! Sorry it took me so long to respond. I didn't notice this until pinged me here. CorporateM (Talk) 18:36, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Most of my previous concerns have been addressed up to GA requirements. I've read through the article and done some copy-editing and added some categories. Feel free to revert any portions that don't work or you don't like. One problem I found was the phrase "many of Reynolds clients said they had moved to competitors", though the news article doesn't appear to support that claim and could be POV. I'm planning on looking more into the sources later. If things go well, I think this article will be ready for GA. FallingGravity (talk) 02:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I thought I remembered reading a source that supported that, but I can't find it now, in that source or doing other searches. It does say "even though fewer dealers are buying it," so I would just replace it with something like "however, fewer customers bought the software..." without mentioning competitors. If you don't mind making that tweak - it is inappropriate for me with a COI in this circumstance. CorporateM (Talk) 14:48, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * There is a request for a second opinion on the nom page, and if the editors here have moved past it, then perhaps the request for a second opinion can be removed from the nom page or clarified. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ CorporateM (Talk) 20:03, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Just wanted to give you a ping here to remind you that the review is still open. WP:NORUSH though. CorporateM (Talk) 14:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I've tweaked the sentence to note that the competitors mentioned in the source (Auto/Mate Dealership Systems and ADP Dealer Services) are the ones making the claim. Does that look good? FallingGravity (talk) 03:08, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't remember the context/discussion string, but in general I think "according to competitors" is such a big qualifier it usually doesn't warrant inclusion without some kind of real verification for a reasonably bold claim (or more emphasis in the sources). Pretty trivial item though - it should be fine for GA either way? CorporateM (Talk) 21:07, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I've decided just to stick to the known facts (Reynolds losing clients). I think it should be obvious that these clients would move on to a similar company, whether its a competitor or not. In the end, I'm giving this review a pass. FallingGravity (talk) 23:46, 13 July 2016 (UTC)