Template:Did you know nominations/Netsmart Technologies


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:29, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Netsmart Technologies

 * ... that Netsmart Technologies, a successful health information technology company, is also an example of what management must do when agreeing to a private equity buyout?
 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Narrow-headed vole

Created by Wasted Time R (talk). Self nominated at 21:20, 11 October 2014 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg Age, length, and QPQ check out. No plagiarism issues are apparent. The article is well written (always welcome at DYK) and its tone is positive but not promotional. The hook, however, does sound promotional even if that wasn't the intent. Identifying it as "successful" seems unnecessary and subjective, and as written the hook seems to put Netsmart's management forward as having done everything right, when in fact shareholders had to sue for information about the sale. So I'd like to see an alternative hook. It can still be about the same fact; we just need a more accurate representation of the history. I'm hesitant to propose one myself because I don't have access to the supporting references. (I'm assuming the hook is based on the sentence calling the lawsuit "influential in delineating the responsibilities of management when agreeing to a private equity buyout".) Lagrange613 18:11, 15 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the review. It was not intended to be promotional, but I see what you mean about how it could be seen as such.  How about
 * ALT1 ... that the acquisition of Netsmart Technologies resulted in a legal decision that became influential in delineating what management must do when agreeing to a private equity buyout?  Wasted Time R (talk) 18:57, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol voting keep.svg Thank you for the quick response! I edited ALT1 a bit for concision, and I like "became influential in delineating" better than "delineated". I don't think the intent is to say that this case has all the answers to what management should do in a buyout. As long as WTR has no objection we are good to go with ALT1. Lagrange613 19:56, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that, thanks again. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC)