GA Review

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Sammi Brie (talk · contribs) 01:32, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·


There are a lot of copy issues as well as reference formatting issues. Please pay some attention to the metadata on your references, as it is lacking in quite a few places. 7-day hold to SerAntoniDeMiloni; ping me when done. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 07:04, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copy changes

[edit]

"CinS" means to consult User:Sammi Brie/Commas in sentences.

Items article-wide:

Lead

[edit]

History

[edit]

Business model

[edit]

Sourcing and spot checks

[edit]

Of the 51 references on the page, I selected 7 for spot checks. They all check out.

2, 5, 14, 17, 18, 32, 37

Other items

[edit]

Response

[edit]
Many thanks @Sammi Brie:! Really detailed review, and I was left with lots to work on. Apologies for taking slightly longer to respond – this review coincided with when I was away :) I believe I've addressed all of the above, and have tried removing some of the in-line quotes (but let me know if still too many).

I will also note that I haven't merged all of the citations with multiple incidences as doing this would lose some of the individual quotes viewable when clicking on the citation. Let me know what you think. Many thanks, SerAntoniDeMiloni (talk) 21:37, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed one more issue by finding the original Management Today piece in ProQuest and citing it instead of a guy's LinkedIn. (They were named one of several Most Visionary Companies in different categories.) This is finally ready to pass. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 05:08, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.