Talk:Paxata

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Paxata/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 22:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 22:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of September 29, 2014, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Unfortunately, writing is a bit choppy at times. Before another GA Review, could first use copy edit from people at WP:GOCE -- however wait til expansion from other recommendations in GA Review, below.

I'll take a look. CorporateM (Talk) 14:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done Or maybe done? The copyediting looks fine to me, but I did add some wikilinks to terms that the user may be familiar with and added a couple missing commas. CorporateM (Talk) 14:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

2. Factually accurate?: Fails here. Info on everything in the infobox is uncited. This appears to include info on WP:BLPs.

 Done I typically prefer to leave as few citations as possible for non-controversial information in the infobox, because having citations inside the square is rather unsightly and much of the information has references in the body of the article. The Lede does not require cites, but I am not sure if the infobox is considered part of the Lede. Oh well, it has cites now. CorporateM (Talk) 14:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

3. Broad in coverage?: Fails here. First off, lede intro sect fails WP:LEAD, not a full concise summary of entire article contents -- appears to only be summary or even just restatement of History sect. Should be summary of entire article as a standalone summary so reader who just reads lede intro sect gets gist of entire article including other sects. History sect seems a bit sparse. Who founded it? Why? What was there motivation? From whom did they get the startup capital? Why were they in stealth mode for so long? What is stealth mode for the reader that doesn't know what stealth mode is? Much more context is needed here. Software sect is actually not too bad.

 Done I expanded the Lede a little, but also hesitantly. Because it is a very small article, the Lede is now about one-quarter of the entire page! CorporateM (Talk) 14:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Regarding the History section, the company has been out of stealth mode for less than one year, so naturally they do not have a very long or detailed history yet. I believe the section is adequate for describing just 1-2 years of history. CorporateM (Talk) 14:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

4. Neutral point of view?: Pretty good here. Reception sect could be expanded a bit more -- hopefully with additional secondary sources, if there are some more out there about this company? I like how the Reception sect does actually include viewpoints from multiple different perspectives, that is a good sign going forwards.

 Not done I have included all the sources I have identified and my search was pretty comprehensive. Perhaps the Reception section could be expanded in the future as additional sources emerge, but I believe the current section is comprehensive based on currently available sources and that it covers all the major aspects. CorporateM (Talk) 14:34, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

5. Article stability?: Article is indeed stable going back a few months in time. No issues upon inspection of article edit history, talk page, and talk page history.

 Done Nothing to do here CorporateM (Talk)

6. Images?: Fails here. (1) File:Paxata-screenshot.png has problem issues tagged at top of page that are not yet addressed. (2) File:Paxata logo.png problem issues tagged at top as well. Best way to resolve both ideally would be to get some statement confirmed via WP:OTRS, and ideally upload to Wikimedia Commons as free-use images, if possible. And/or just resolve those various image tags with additional explanations on the image pages, the image talk pages, and the article talk page.

1.  Done I have removed the flag. The flag seemed to have been making an assumption that I lied about the image's origins, saying that it says it is from an offline source, but it is most likely from an online source. This just isn't true. It was provided to me directly from Paxata, offline. The source information is correct. CorporateM (Talk) 14:37, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

2.  Not done The flag says "The usage of this non-free media on Wikipedia was previously under review for compliance". This is true and does not seem to indicate a problem with the image - just notes that it has been discussed. CorporateM (Talk) 14:37, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, not GA quality at this time, due to extensive issues on multiple points, above. Please feel free to renominate when you feel above issues are addressed. Good job on the NPOV in the Reception sect, however!!

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— — Cirt (talk) 13:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Paxata/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: 23W (talk · contribs) 00:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi @user:23W. I figured you probably weren't logged-in over Christmas, so I wanted to check-in and make sure this was still on your radar. CorporateM (Talk) 19:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

@CorporateM: Apologies for the wait. I'll try getting to this before the end of the week. 23W 09:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

@CorporateM: Ugh, sorry for the wait—again. It probably wasn't a good idea for me to take these up during these busy times. I'll have something up soon. 23W 23:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for reviewing! CorporateM (Talk) 23:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Review (finally)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments

• Gave a simple copy edit myself; click here to see the changes.
  • I also added a slew of wikilinks to the lead, which should help the layperson. Most of these are already present in the body, so it makes sense to introduce them here.
• Although it was brought up in the previous review that the infobox required citations after each cell, it's probably overkill here. You could at least remove the references for information already present in the body of the article.

 Done CorporateM (Talk) 23:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• Searching through some of the lesser-known sources, they seem to meet WP:SOURCE standards of all having editorial oversight and being cited in other reliable third-party sources (used mainly Google News to search up articles containing the name of the source excluding the domain of said source).
• This may be out of scope, but in the "Software" section, the references that are placed mid-sentence without any punctuation should probably be bundled for readability. I've attempted this in the code below; you would copy it from where the "Software" section begins to the end of the first paragraph:

Extended content

Paxata refers to its suite of cloud-based data [[data quality|quality]], [[data integration|integration]], enrichment and governance products as "Adaptive Data Preparation."<ref name="bundle1">For "cloud-based", see: {{cite news|title=Startup Paxata automates the dirty work of big data|first=Conner|last=Forrest|date=March 4, 2014|url=http://www.techrepublic.com/article/startup-paxata-automates-the-dirty-work-of-big-data/|work=TechRepublic|publisher=CBS Interactive|accessdate=June 26, 2014}} * For "data quality ... governance", see: {{cite news|title=Cool Vendors in Data Integration and Data|date=April 24, 2014|first1=Eric|last1=Thoo|first2=Ted|last2=Friedman|first3=Saul|last3=Judah|first4=Rita L.|last4=Sallam|first5=Roxane|last5=Edjlali|publisher=Gartner|url=https://www.gartner.com/doc/2719217/cool-vendors-data-integration-data|accessdate=June 19, 2014}} * For "enrichment ... 'Adaptive Data Preparation.{{' "}}, see: {{cite news|date=October 28, 2013|title=Paxata Debuts Data Quality Tools at Strata|first=Alex|last=Woodie|url=http://www.datanami.com/2013/10/28/paxata_debuts_data_quality_tools_at_strata/|work=Datanami|accessdate=June 19, 2014}} Also see: {{cite news|first=Tony|last=Baer|publisher=Ovum|title=Paxata puts a business-user face on data preparation|date=October 28, 2013|accessdate=June 19, 2014|url=http://www.ovum.com/paxata-puts-a-business-user-face-on-data-preparation/}}</ref> The software is intended for [[business analyst]]s, who need to combine data from a variety of sources, then check the data for duplicates, empty fields, outliers, trends and integrity issues before conducting analysis or visualization in a third-party software tool.<ref name="four">{{cite news|first=Tony|last=Baer|publisher=Ovum|title=Paxata puts a business-user face on data preparation|date=October 28, 2013|accessdate=June 19, 2014|url=http://www.ovum.com/paxata-puts-a-business-user-face-on-data-preparation/}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=On the Radar: Paxata|first=Tony|last=Baer|date=December 13, 2013|accessdate=June 13, 2014|url=http://www.ovum.com/research/on-the-radar-paxata/|publisher=Ovum}}</ref> It uses algorithms and machine-learning to automate certain aspects of data preparation.<ref name="four"/><ref name="thirteen"/> For example, it may automatically detect records belonging to the same person or address, even if the information is formatted differently in each record in different data sets.<ref name="nine"/><ref name="thirteen">{{cite news|date=February 11, 2014|first=Michael|last=Fitzgerald|title=Is Your Company Running a Data Dump?|url=http://www.informationweek.com/software/information-management/is-your-company-running-a-data-dump/d/d-id/1113776|newspaper=InformationWeek|publisher=UBM Tech|accessdate=June 19, 2014}}</ref>

 Done CorporateM (Talk) 23:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Otherwise, good work. All problems brought up in the last review seem to be addressed. Putting on hold for 14 days. 23W 20:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• @CorporateM: Looks good! 23W 23:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Minor updates

Suggest the following updates:

• Add to the end of the History section: "It raised an additional $18 million in funding in September 2015."
• Add to the second paragraph of the Features section: "It runs on Apache Spark."
• Add to he end of the History section: "It also began working with Cisco to jointly develop the Cisco Data Preparation suite of software and services."

References

References

Done. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:28, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Paxata

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 • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:43, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Small article has not been maintained after GAN. A few issues:

• Some content is unique to the lead
• In March 2014, In-Q-Tel acquired an interest in the startup. -> not clear what interest that was
• t also began working with Cisco to jointly develop the Cisco Data Preparation suite of software and services -> Did this succeed? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 09:52, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

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.