Talk:Stage 32

Article creation review
I've created this article but I have an NPOV issue, in that I know someone in the company and was asked to create this article as a personal favor. I am not getting paid but wanted to run it by some other editors before I move it to the main space. Dkriegls ( talk to me! ) 08:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Notability
The first question is about notability. I've determined notability from coverage in these four citations: (1)The Beach Reporter, a notable local newspaper found here on Wikipedia; (2)The State Press, a notable college newspaper found here on Wikipedia; (3)indie source, an independent film industry magazine; and (4)HM Magazine, a notable music industry magazine, found here on Wikipedia. Dkriegls ( talk to me! ) 05:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Do you agree? If so, would you mind switching the site to the main space at Stage 32?

NPOV
Are there any NPOV issues that stand out to you? I did take some text directly from the company but I think I did my best to remove any press release sounding text. However, I know I am not perfect. Dkriegls ( talk to me! ) 05:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Feedback from WWB
Hi there, finally found some time to read through the article more closely. I do think it needs a bit more work before it's really ready, and all of this is presented below. So here's what I see:


 * Remove "global" from first sentence in the lead section; could be seen as puffery, better to say it's US-based.
 * Make sure all details currently in the lead are also in the body, and remove citations from lead (see WP:CITELEAD).
 * I did this, but I don't read CITELEAD to call for removal of citations in the lead, only that redundancy should be balanced against accessibility. Both of which don't have much weight in a short article with a hand full of citations.-- Dkriegls  ( talk to me! ) 09:27, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Since revenue is not reported, I would leave that parameter blank; not a major issue, though.
 * Remove spaces between punctuation and reference citations where this occurs.
 * The first sentence of the second paragraph of History sounds a bit more like a press release than an encyclopedia, and should be rewritten. One suggestion in particular: instead of "creatives" say "creative professionals"; seems less jargony to me.
 * I did a rewrite that I think fixes this. Dkriegls  ( talk to me! ) 09:19, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * In the second sentence of the same paragraph, the word "currently" appears, but this can date quickly. I'd suggest replacing it with.
 * Third paragraph in the History section is one long sentence—I'd suggest breaking it down into shorter, simpler sentences.
 * Same sentence: I wouldn't use the phrase "key milestones" but simply state that these things occurred (perhaps leading with the date each occurred) and let their "key-ness" speak for themselves by their inclusion. And "official" is misspelled in the same paragraph.
 * Features and Products should be sentence case: Features and products
 * Lose bullets in Notable projects as unnecessary; rewrite bit including "found success"—arguably puffery, would be just as informative if written shorter.
 * I would also suggest moving the material from Notable projects to the History section and retitling it Background. As a young company it doesn't have much history, and as a short article it doesn't require too many divisions.
 * Done, although I changed the title to "Global Reach". Is that too puffy? Dkriegls  ( talk to me! ) 09:35, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Movie titles should be italicized, not inside of quotation marks.

That's probably more than you expected, but if you agree with and implement these, I'd be happy to make the move from my primary account. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 22:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, I knew this wasn't my best work, but you have humbled me with how many simple errors I made. ;) I'll make the appropriate corrections and then let you know. Thanks for the peer-review. Dkriegls  ( talk to me! ) 19:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright, I took a crack at it. Tell me what you think. Dkriegls  ( talk to me! ) 09:36, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Moving to mainspace
WWB Too's peer reviewed the NPOV issues and agreed that the references meet notability requirements. I'm going to move it over to the main space and we can finish clean up from there. -- Dkriegls  ( talk to me! ) 23:03, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Sounds great. Apologies, Dkriegls, for my absence—I'm traveling this week and have been mostly off-wiki. But glad I could help! WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 00:13, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries. I figured as much, that's why I took the initiative. No rush, Wikipedia moves at the pace that Wikipedia moves at. -- Dkriegls  ( talk to me! ) 07:01, 24 December 2013 (UTC)