Talk:Tipalti/GA1
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.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Nominator: Quixotic Rick (talk · contribs) 20:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Sir MemeGod (talk · contribs) 16:39, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I will be reviewing this shortly. :) SirMemeGod 16:39, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- While it is well-written, it is very short for what we expect.
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- There are citations in the lede, much of the information in the lede isn't mentioned anywhere else (e.g. that the company is headquartered in Foster City, California), seems somewhat promotional in nature, particularly regarding the "Notable Clients" part near the end of the article.
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- No serious issues with the layout itself of the article, refs are in their appropriate section.
- 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):
- Crunchbase (ref 14) is considered unreliable. Others, including TechCrunch.com (ref 6) and Business Insider (ref 4) are marginally reliable.
- C. It contains no original research:
- Passes with no issue.
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- I found a 7.4% similarity with pymnts.com, which is too low to be plagarism. No other issues found here.
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Seems to address that the company is about and it's growth, which is what we look for. The issue is length, the article is neither long enough or has enough information.
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- No issue, doesn't go into unnecessary detail.
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Seems slightly promotional in nature. As already stated, the "Notable Clients" section doesn't seem very useful other than for promotional reasons.
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Edit War Checker found nothing, and a page history search also found no recent disputes.
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- One image, which is improperly sourced (called "Own Work" when it clearly isn't) and will most likely now be deleted.
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- Only one image, not enough to accurately convey the topic. Logo also has no caption.
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Unfortunately I am going to fail this nomination due to not meeting the following criteria: 1b, 6a & 6b. The article is short for what we expect out of a good article and the promotional tone does not represent Wikipedia's best work. No images (since the one is a copyright violation), among other things which I do not believe can be fixed in a timely manner. I suggest that you work to lengthen the article, find an image or two (the logo may fall under a fair use rationale) and then renominate. Thanks! :) SirMemeGod 16:54, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
- Pass or Fail:
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.