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.
WWGSE-Mark (talk·contribs) has been paid by Westwing Group SE. Their editing has included contributions to this article. Declaration
Comment: I find it rather presumptuous of the author to dispute the reviewer's assessment to such an extent as to resubmit the draft "nearly unchanged". The way the AfC review system is intended to work is that reviewers review, and authors develop and improve based on the reviews and comments. If the author wishes to dispute a review, they need to discuss it, either on the reviewer's talk page or at the help desk, not just tendentiously resubmit. DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my view the problems mentioned do not exist. The various media sources listed in the footnotes are independent and have reported extensively on Westwing. The suggestion that the sources are not reliable is incomprehensible, as is the suggestion that significant media do not regularly report on Westwing. I am submitting the draft nearly unchanged for review. Only some figures are updated. --WWGSE-Mark (talk) 10:27, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ DoubleGrazing The extensive coverage can be viewed via Genios. This is the link: GENIOS - Press. It shows reports from daily newspapers according to relevance. The same goes for trade magazines, see here: GENIOS - Trade press. If you enter the article titles given in the footnotes into Genios, you can see that they are by no means fakes. I think all the requirements for sources are met.
In my opinion, discussions about review results can be held where the result was announced, i.e. here. After all, that often happens. --WWGSE-Mark (talk) 09:08, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While you think these problems don't exist, the comment and the linked project page (WP:OFFLINE) explain the concern that we as AfC reviewers are trying to address when we're asking for more specificity, particularly how in-depth is the coverage (this gets to WP:Notability) and how easy is it for us to verify (WP:V).
Wikipedia has templates built in to address these concerns. Look through {{cite web}} or {{cite news}} and see the specificity that is typically required to ensure that the information is coming from somewhere specific. Wikipedia is not unfamiliar with how to deal with paywalled content, we just need to know where it is located. Providing plaintext references such as Karsten Zunke: Handfeste Mehrwerte fürs Kerngeschäft. In: Internet World Business, issue 41, 2018 (October 5, 2018) make it difficult for people to track these things down so we, as volunteers, are asking you, a WP:PAID contributor to meet us where we are in helping review your work for specific concerns we have as people who are used to working on the project.
Simply responding to these concerns with hostility and not addressing them in the proper manner makes it difficult for others to work with you in publishing your work, and providing us with generic search results and telling us to look it up is (1) not helpful, (2) not our job, and (3) not going to improve the chances that people are able to verify the content your trying to establish here. Again, you're being WP:PAID, we're volunteers; help us help you.
No one is trying to stifle conversation by hosting these discussions on either the reviewer's, author's, or article's talk page. It's that people who participate in the project are most used to holding conversations on talk pages, that's their purpose. This isn't the only place that the decision was given. See the section on your talk page as an example. In that section it says you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.
Again, the biggest thing here is that you can't come to the project and demand things be done your way. Please understand the practices and procedures of the space you're being paid to come to, and read through the relevant policies that affect your work on here, as well as the guidelines that have been linked for you in all of the information in all of the notices given.
In regards to my declination of the draft, I am declining because, despite my best efforts (which I expect were a duplicate of @DoubleGrazing's given their edit summary, as they are a reviewer who I respect) I was unable to verify some of the claims that may be construed as promotional language, and therefore potentially in violation of our WP:NPOV and WP:V policy. Bobby Cohn (talk) 20:31, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
we have looked at the rejection of the draft and the commentary on it (July 29, 2024). Thank you for the comments and hints. We have therefore linked all non-free newspaper and magazine articles in the footnotes. They are available via the Genios press database. We have also checked again: We do not see any promotional wording in our draft. We would therefore ask you to review it again. Thank you very much. --WWGSE-Mark (talk) 08:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WWGSE-Mark who is "we"? Wikipedia accounts on the English Wikipedia cannot be shared (WP:SHAREDACCOUNT). Thank you for the links, I'll note that you still used generic search results for most of the links provided, but they were specific enough to be able to correct your references. Please note the difference between these two versions of the draft, and see how one makes verifying content much easier. I've made the corrections for all the references, but please let me know if I erred in any of my revisions. For all future edits to this draft page, or any {{edit COI}} edit requests you make to the page following publication to the mainspace, please ensure you properly cite your material as such. Best, Bobby Cohn (talk) 14:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
“We” means the company. But to be clear: I am the only user of this account. The sources have always been properly cited. Be that as it may, in today's version we have improved the section on the business model and ask for approval of the draft. --WWGSE-Mark (talk) 12:10, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I find it rather presumptuous of the author to dispute the reviewer's assessment to such an extent as to resubmit the draft "nearly unchanged". The way the AfC review system is intended to work is that reviewers review, and authors develop and improve based on the reviews and comments. If the author wishes to dispute a review, they need to discuss it, either on the reviewer's talk page or at the help desk, not just tendentiously resubmit. DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)