Wikipedia:Peer review/Hightail/archive1

YouSendIt
This peer review discussion has been closed. With some feedback from several editors, I have incorporated a first draft of the article that I have written with a COI as a PR professional. I would like to bring the article up to GA eventually and am interested in feedback on what it needs to be ready for a nomination. CorporateM (Talk) 20:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Suggestions and recommendations
 * 1) Per WP:LEAD, citations should be cited in the body text of the article and the lede should itself only be a summary of the rest of the following body text.
 * 2) Looks better always to have citations appear after punctuation, not just randomly after a word or something. It looks like there are places where there could be a comma or semi-colon before a cite in a few spots.
 * 3) Chronological order: Background sect should appear before other stuff, grounding the reader in some basic background info.
 * 4) Reception sect: Any more info here? Can this be fleshed out a bit more? Perhaps with a couple quotes, or a few paraphrased portions? Also, any critical feedback?
 * 5) Reception sect: "TopTenReviews gave it a 9.5 out of 10." -- is there a cite backing up this info?
 * 6) Images: Is there any chance the copyright holder for those images could be contacted to ask if they will license those few images by a free-use license such as: Creative Commons Attribution Sharealike 3.0, so that the images can be moved to Wikimedia Commons for use on other language projects?

Thank you for the quality improvements to the article so far, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 03:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Can you please reply below, instead of interspersing your comments, above, so that it doesn't break up the numbering I had used initially? Can you please move those replies here, below? Thank you, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 03:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * (moved/summarized) Thanks so much for the feedback!! I may have a distorted view of how balanced the Reception section is, but I'll give it another run. I thought it was weird I got feedback on the draft to add cites to the lead - fixed that. I added a couple commas, but not sure if they were the ones you meant. I noticed other software articles had an Overview above the history/background, but I went ahead and changed it. The cite for TopTenReviews was at the end of the following sentence - I just duplicated the cite so each sentence has one. CorporateM (Talk) 14:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks a bit better, I'll see if I can go over it again soon. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)