Wikipedia:Peer review/Personal (company)/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I created it as an intern of the company and would like to disclose the conflict of interest and have other editors review the article to check for significant sources and notability as well as complete neutrality.
Thanks, Ejsmiley (talk) 14:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Comments from EdwardH
[edit]- Prices should generally not be included, per WP:NOTCATALOGUE.
- What was The Map Network? What did it do?
- Many terms are mentioned, but not defined. For example, what are "Privacy by Design principles", the Infomediary model and the vendor relationship management model?
- How does the "Small Data Meetup Group" relate to Personal?
- Information in the History section is not ordered chronologically.
- Many paragraphs are only one or two sentences long. These should be merged into larger, cohesive paragraphs. Try and fit information into paragraphs which follow the summary or news styles.
- Names of magazines should be in italics.
- There are too many quotes in the article which are just speculation. E.g., "Mashable posed the question: 'Never Fill Out a Form Again?'" and the CEO's claim that "the average American consumer would soon be able to realize over $1,000 per year".
- Use straight quotes instead of curly quotes, per MOS:QUOTEMARKS.
- Avoid using sources from the company. For example, the CEO's claim that "Personal has helped to popularize the concept of 'small data'" is not at all reliable unless backed up by third-party sources.
- The products and services sections needs more information about the actual products themselves and less on the media's reponse.
- Information is organised haphazardly. For example in the Data Vault section, there are four one-sentence paragraphs between description a description of how it works and a paragraph on the product's features. These paragraphs would be better adjacent to one another.
Regarding notability, I think it would be better if more sources were solely about the company, rather than mentioning it incidentally when talking about personal data management. However, I think there is just enough about it to call it notable. EdwardH (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)