Talk:Klick (company)

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Articles for creation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 15 July 2024 by reviewer Qcne (talk · contribs).

Companies Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies 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.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

Marketing & Advertising Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Marketing & Advertising, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Marketing 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.Marketing & AdvertisingWikipedia:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingTemplate:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingMarketing & Advertising articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Pharmacology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology 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.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Canada Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada 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.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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.

Marisa at Klick (talk · contribs) has been paid by Klick on their behalf. Their editing has included contributions to this article.

Confusion

Hi TheTechie! Thanks for your feedback; although, I'm confused as there are 58 references, many of which are significant or in-depth coverage by independent, reliable global and business media or leading trade journals.There are also numerous industry-leading awards. This makes a strong case for notability, and I'd appreciate another review. Preceding transferred comment by Marisa at Klick 18:02, 9 May 2024 (UTC) thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 23:38, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Marisa at Klick You are free to resubmit and have a third opinion. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 23:39, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. We're discussing it here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk#18:06,_9_May_2024_review_of_submission_by_Marisa_at_Klick. Marisa at Klick (talk) 16:56, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also being discussed at Wikipedia:Teahouse. What the company and its senior management/founders say about itself should not be quoted and those references do not contribute to notability. i made some brutal deletions which in my opinion improve the potential for the draft's acceptance. David notMD (talk) 11:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Resubmission of tighter, better-sourced version (thanks!)

Hi Everyone,

Thank you for all of your feedback, analysis, and support. I've resubmitted a new version. Marisa at Klick (talk) 19:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Updated with recent awards

Hi Everyone,

We've updated the draft with 4 citations about recent awards. Looking forward to a review. Thanks much! Marisa at Klick (talk) 16:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheTechie: Hello again. I've taken in all of the advice I've received and made a lot of progress since the initial submission, by focusing on fewer and more significant, independent, and reliable sources. Would you please consider reviewing the draft again? Thanks so much! Marisa at Klick (talk) 16:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Qcne: Hi again, you were giving us really thoughtful advice and clear guidance and we've tried to follow it closely. We removed all non-significant, non-independent sources, and added numerous better citations. Would you be willing to please give us a fresh review based on NCORP? Thank you, and looking forward to your honest opinion! Marisa at Klick (talk) 15:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael D. Turnbull: Hi, you offered very constructive feedback at the Teahouse about this draft. Would you be willing to please review it with its recent (and major) changes? Thanks kindly, Marisa at Klick (talk) 15:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This reads much better now, to my eyes. Its acceptance will depend on convincing the reviewer that Klick meets WP:NCORP. It probably does, IMO, owing to the various awards which themselves have Wikipedia articles. These are much better than trying to "inherit notability" from Klick's client list. Many of the citations you have currently are based on interviews, which are therefore not WP:Independent of the company. That's OK for backing up simple facts but it would help the reviewer if you could highlight about three citations that really are independent (assuming you have them!). You could do that by adding a comment at the top of the draft along the lines of "see in particular cites #3, 8, 9" or whichever. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey again @Marisa at Klick. I think it now meets NORG, but my one bit of feedback is that the entire Operations section seems a bit clunkily worded, I would replace it with something like...

Klick Health is described [by who?] as one of the largest independent health agencies. The company reports [insert specific growth figure]. In 2006, Klick Health replaced its internal email systems with a new software program intended for messaging and project management. This program, named Genome, incorporates analytics to potentially improve productivity and has been associated with the agency's expansion. The organizational structure of Klick Health does not include a human resources department, which has been a point of concern for some employees.

Qcne (talk) 15:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your excellent suggestions. I've implemented them. Would you feel comfortable reviewing the article one last time, and if you still think it meets NORG, consider moving it live? Thank you again very much! Marisa at Klick (talk) 16:54, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Marisa at Klick I think that puts it over the edge, I've accepted it. Please add some WP:CATEGORIES. Qcne (talk) 17:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising and NPOV Tags

Hi Everyone. I'm really excited that the article is live. Now, I want to bring it up to the standards and expectations that will make it a great article.

I am a paid employee of Klick, as I immediately disclosed when I created my account. I used the paid contributor template on my user page, as @DoubleGrazing kindly requested.

I submitted my draft through Articles for Creation where it was reviewed and moved live by @Qcne with additional guidance from @Michael D. Turnbull.

I'm trying to understand the warnings added by @Gobonobo. I am not aware of what phrases, sentences, paragraphs, or other elements promote the subject beyond what the sources directly report. I don't see which words, sections, or sources are not in line with the Neutral Point of View policy. If you can please help me understand what justifies the warning tags, I'd greatly appreciate it, so that I can help address those issues.

Just a note: I originally submitted a much more complete draft that did not meet NORG, but I cut it way back at the recommendations of several editors. It's possible that the longer version, if incorporated, would make the article more balanced; although, I don't currently understand what in the article is advertising or non-neutral.

Thanks so much for your help and assistance. I appreciate your time and expertise. Marisa at Klick (talk) 21:23, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Marisa at Klick:. Please note that most Wikipedia editors are volunteers and that taking the time to process your requests and respond to your complaints takes away from the vital tasks of maintaining an encyclopedia. I would advise you to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and WP:NOPAY, our guideline about paid editors like yourself. If you have basic questions about what certain cleanup templates mean, our documentation is quite extensive, but if you have questions, you are welcome to bring them to the WP:TEAHOUSE. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 00:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Marisa at Klick. My assessment, as accepting reviewer, is that the article is no longer written like an advert, but the fun thing about Wikipedia is that different editors can have different views. @Gobonobo would be worth getting your pov? Qcne (talk) 07:58, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. I thought a three-sentence lead, where one of the sentences began "Klick has won multiple awards...", gave undue emphasis to that aspect and bordered on puffery. Few readers know what Cannes Lions is and advertising agencies are notorious for their self-congratulatory awards festivals and fawning media coverage of each other. The sentence "It is the world's largest, independent health agency" is misleading as it makes it sound as if Klick is a health care provider and critically omits the word advertising. The operations section just sandwiches a couple of quotes together, which seem cherry-picked to present the company in the most positive light possible.

Honestly, I worry that companies are simply incapable of writing their own Wikipedia articles in a manner that complies with our standards of neutrality. They are almost without exception biased, omit any negative coverage, and are laden with corporate adspeak jargon. I can see that Qcne did a good job of helping pare this down from a much worse original version, but I cannot help but imagine the difference between this and a neutral article written by an editor without a conflict of interest. Still, I don't see how we can fairly present an article like this to our readers as if it were written from a WP:NPOV without at least a warning to them that this article was written under the direction of the company by that's company's employee. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 12:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for expanding on your feedback, Gobonobo. I appreciate that you are a volunteer, and I have always been transparent that I am paid to work on this effort. I do understand this article is not your highest priority or any editor's responsibility.

As for the lead, I'm completely fine with modifying it to: "It is the world's largest, independent health [marketing] agency." The initial phrasing was not intended to deceive but to mirror the two sources that make the claim (sources: Strategy and Yale School of Management).

As for the article seeming positive, Klick hired an independent researcher to locate all news coverage of the company over 26 years: they found 70 potentially reliable sources. I added any criticism they found to our draft, including a negative story about HR concerns. There frankly isn't much negative coverage--which of course aligns with my professional interests, but it is also verifiable. You don't have to take my word for it; anyone can search Google (or your library) for Klick and terms like criticism, controversy, scandal, problem, incident, etc. If anyone finds anything in a reliable source, I support including it as part of NPOV.

I understand your concern about companies writing their own Wikipedia articles, and while acknowledging it, I am following what WP:COI, WP:PAID, and WP:PSCOI state as policy and best practices. I do respect the rules, and the roles of volunteers, even if there's scrutiny about my motivations.

Thank you for your commitment to Wikipedia (it truly is amazing), and for all the help you've given me. Marisa at Klick (talk) 22:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Gobonobo. I've made some minor clean-up edits. I added appropriate categories. I added a logo. I fixed the misleading sentence in the lead by noting that Klick is a health marketing agency. I know the article needs more clean-up and I'm totally ready to rewrite any pieces that seem promotional. I know I haven't excluded critical coverage, but I see how the article reads in an all-positive light. Are there any specific phrases or sentences that bother you? Marisa at Klick (talk) 18:42, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]