Talk:Smartsheet
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 | Smartsheet has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| Current status: Good article | |||||||||||||
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 26 October 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
 | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Smartsheet was copied or moved into Smartsheet Inc. with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
 | The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
Draft
 | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
The current article has some promotionalism that is typically indicative of conflicted editing. The lead focuses excessively on customers, it has a dedicated section for Awards and the Features section just lists features, instead of providing a summary and description based on reliable sources.
I've put a draft together at Talk:Smartsheet/draft that I would like to suggest as a proposed replacement for the current article that would correct this. It would also make the article more up-to-date, better sourced, more comprehensive, etc. I would also like to add some images and a short video, but will have to work those out later for copyright reasons. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 18:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- I took a look at the draft. It is indeed significantly better than what was there. I made some copyedits and swapped it in. @CorporateM: what do you typically do with the drafts? history merge? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Rhododendrites: Thanks for reviewing! Regarding the technical process of how the draft is merged, I'm indifferent.
- If you care to review any others, I'm always scrounging for an editor to look at this kind of stuff.
- I'll get started on squaring away the images on this page, starting with the logo. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 02:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Reviewer: Samtar (talk · contribs) 09:03, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
GA Review
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Smartsheet/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Criteria
Good Article Status - Review Criteria
A good article is—
- Well-written:
- (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
- (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
- Verifiable with no original research:
- (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
- (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2]
- (c) it contains no original research; and
- (d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
- Broad in its coverage:
- (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
- (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
- Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
- Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. [4]
- Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: [5]
- (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
- (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]
Review
- Well-written:
- Verifiable with no original research:
- Broad in its coverage:
- Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
- Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
- Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (prose) | Clear, concise and clear of spelling and grammatical errors. | Pass |
| (b) (MoS) | Passing. | Pass |
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (major aspects) | Covers the mainaspects of the topic. | Pass |
| (b) (focused) | Does not go into unnecessary detail. | Pass |
| Notes | Result |
|---|---|
| Article represents viewpoints fairly and without bias. | Pass |
| Notes | Result |
|---|---|
| Very stable - no content disputes. | Pass |
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) | Two images are present, both of which with fair-use rationales. | Pass |
| (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) | Both images are captioned. | Pass |
Result
| Result | Notes |
|---|---|
| Pass | Well done - passes GA criteria at the time of review. |
Discussion
- I plan to finish the rest of the review process this evening (GMT) @CorporateM: apologies for the delay -- samtar whisper 12:09, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Additional notes
- Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
- Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
- This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
- Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
- Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
- The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
