Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Smartsheet/1

Smartsheet

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Smartsheet/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • Most recent review
 * Result: Kept Not really fishy and found a citation for the release date AIRcorn (talk) 00:41, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

The GA status of this article strikes me as fishy- it was initiated by, a wikipedian who admits to running a business that "contributed more than 50 Good Article-ranked pages about businesses and individuals", and completed by , who I wasn't able to find much on.

As for the article itself, it's decently NPOV and does an okay job of talking about the company and the product, but there's not a lot of content. If GA is supposed to identify articles that are better than average, but not at FA status, I wouldn't argue that this page meets that criteria. Given my inexperience as an editor, I'm nominating it for community reassessment. Rivselis (talk) 21:52, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I reviewed the article and I must say I was not really impressed. I could immediately tell that criteria 1a and 1b of GAC needed attention. I also uploaded a new logo, added two citation needed tags, two Clarification needed tags, and fixed one contradictory statement. (And I learned about all of these today.) It still needs more work. flowing dreams (talk page) 10:52, 7 September 2019 (UTC)


 * It is odd. The review is signed Samtar, but has only been edited by . Maybe they renamed their account, but I would have expected the contribs to be linked. Anyway TNT has been around a long time and I think is even an admin, so the review is not as much as a concern as first impressions might suggest. CorporateM is pretty open about what they do so that is not really an issue. I would say going through the GA process is a good thing for paid editing as it brings other eyes to the article. AIRcorn (talk) 00:51, 19 October 2019 (UTC)