| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Monday.com article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
Please elaborate edit
User:Saucy, can you please elaborate on the issues you see on this article? Uziel302 (talk) 15:13, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Uziel302: The "The product" section stuck out to me the most. It doesn't have a formal tone, rather it is worded more like a tutorial or an advertisement. Saucy[talk – contribs] 22:13, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Advert template edit
User:Crocodilesareforwimps, can you please elaborate what makes you think this is an advert? Uziel302 (talk) 06:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
The article is full of advertising-like language. Especially the product section with its detailed bullet point breakdown of the product features. CrocodilesAreForWimps (talk) 20:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
COI edit
@Timtempleton: I think a COI concern about this article is warranted. Just the most recent 50 edits contain five SPA accounts that either exclusively edit about monday.com, or in the case of the fifth, look like a PR agency for that sector. Adding that to the conversation on the Helpdesk yesterday. I'm a bit wary over this article and where it will head. - X201 (talk) 08:57, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- @X201: I agree, especially with the clearly insider edit that happened right after I went through it and took the time to clean it up. It’s good to have an extra set of eyeballs on this, and if you want to tag it again, feel free. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 16:28, 25 May 2021 (UTC)