This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
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.
Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
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)Reply
(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]
^ 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.
^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.
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
It's been almost two years since I brought this page up to GA status with the help of @Rhododendrites:. Since then the company has raised more funding, its user base has doubled, and new sources have been published. I have placed some suggested updates to the page at Talk:Smartsheet/draft that would bring the page up to date and would like to request an unaffiliated editor consider incorporating them if they improve the article.
I am hesitant as to whether the lawsuit with Amazon (included in the draft) warrants inclusion and leave it up to the editor reviewing. From what I can tell, Smartsheet did prompt the lawsuit by offering to hire an Amazon employee but was not otherwise substantially involved in the litigation or settlement that was between Amazon and the Smartsheet employee. CorporateM (Talk) 21:35, 6 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Part of an edit requested by an editor with a conflict of interest has been implemented. Please see the Reply entry below for more information about your request.
Requesting a few minor updates located at Talk:Smartsheet/draft, which includes three revisions:
The GA status of this article strikes me as fishy- it was initiated by CorporateM (talk·contribs), a wikipedian who admits to running a business that "contributed more than 50 Good Article-ranked pages about businesses and individuals", and completed by Samtar (talk·contribs), who I wasn't able to find much on.
As for the article itself, it's decently NPOV and does an okay job of talking about the company and the product, but there's not a lot of content. If GA is supposed to identify articles that are better than average, but not at FA status, I wouldn't argue that this page meets that criteria. Given my inexperience as an editor, I'm nominating it for community reassessment. Rivselis (talk) 21:52, 14 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
I reviewed the article and I must say I was not really impressed. I could immediately tell that criteria 1a and 1b of GAC needed attention. I also uploaded a new logo, added two {{citation needed}} tags, two {{Clarification needed}} tags, and fixed one contradictory statement. (And I learned about all of these today.) It still needs more work. flowing dreams (talk page) 10:52, 7 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
It is odd. The review is signed Samtar, but has only been edited by There'sNoTime. Maybe they renamed their account, but I would have expected the contribs to be linked. Anyway TNT has been around a long time and I think is even an admin, so the review is not as much as a concern as first impressions might suggest. CorporateM is pretty open about what they do so that is not really an issue. I would say going through the GA process is a good thing for paid editing as it brings other eyes to the article. AIRcorn(talk)00:51, 19 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
Partially implemented