Talk:SOSV

Issues

This article has multiple issues, and the warning flags should not be removed until those issues are addressed.

• It reads like an advertisement for SOSVentures. In fact, most of the text in the lead section appears to have been copied directly from the SOSVentures LinkedIn page.
• It is not written in an encyclopedic tone. For example, it uses the expressions "our staff have contributed", "our investments include", and "is available on our website".
• It contains multiple glowing endorsements that are not supported by reliable sources. For example, "the firm has a blended return of 27% per annum", "6 of which became public companies", and "our staff have contributed strongly in a number of other programs".

Finally, the single contributing editor has removed the "multiple issues" tag twice today, and the next time will be in violation of the the three-revert rule. -AndrewDressel (talk) 23:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• I have made amendments as pointed out, will someone review this and let me know if it is now ok?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niamh OD (talk • contribs) 13:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Looks good. I've removed the tags. -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I have made the suggested edits. Can you please review. Thanks, Jane O Connor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janeoconnor77 (talk • contribs) 11:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I have made the suggested edits. Can you please review to see if this takes care of the issues raised. Thanks. Jane o'connor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.103.5.114 (talk) 16:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I've posted a request on the talk page of the editor who inserted the banner to encourage him to take a look. These things take time when no one is in charge. -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

It's much better, but the Social Entrepeneurship section is still full of gushing, and there are a couple of problems with the accelerator section, too. Ironholds (talk) 11:26 am, Today (UTC−6)

Fixed Social Entrepreneurship section ..hopefully less gushing..just the facts...pared back the accelerator section completetly to bare facts. `Can you please review. Thanks for the feedback. Best Jane O Connor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janeoconnor77 (talk • contribs) 11:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Works for me. Now perhaps, instead of a banner, specific issues can be flagged if necessary. -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Name

Hi there guys, is it possible to change the page name from SOSVentures to SOSventures?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niamh OD (talk • contribs) 15:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

It would be helpful if the correct spelling could be identified in a reliable source. As it stands now, I can easily find at least three varients:

• SOSVentures: BusinessInsider, LinkedIn] (which is particularly damning, since it is presumed to have been created by someone from SOSVentures, right?)
• SOS Ventures: independent.ie
• SOSventures: SiliconRepublic, CrunchBase, AngelList, and WeForest

It is not clear that any varient is obviously more correct than any other. It would be helpful if something could be found that was from the organization directly. -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:11, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah ha. Finally found www.sosventures.com (duh), and sure enough, it uses "SOSventures", so I'll make the change. -AndrewDressel (talk) 16:51, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The company name is now SOSV. If you go to www.sosventures.com it redirects you to www.sosv.com. Can this be fixed?Bronze Magnet (talk) 00:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Can an online encyclopedia staffed by volunteers keep up with the random name changes of private organization? Please. -AndrewDressel (talk) 00:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Whenever you have time will be great. I understand you're busy. Your volunteerism is much appreciated! Bronze Magnet (talk) 23:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Font size and family

Please stop specifying specific font names and sizes. This is a Wikipedia article, not a marketing webpage. Check the Wikipedia Manual of Style for details. -AndrewDressel (talk) 15:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Format for listing portfolio companies

In the Investments section, several portfolio companies are listed. I'm the one who added the reference to Perfect Day, reflecting the name change from Muufri (full disclosure: I am employed by this company). I followed the format given by the one other company in the list that has apparently undergone a name change: "Spark (now Particle)". Is this Wiki convention, or can the companies be listed "Perfect Day (formerly Muufri)" and "Particle (formerly Spark)"? It's not intuitive to me that we'd continue to primarily refer to these companies by their now-defunct names. BlackMaus (talk) 21:48, 10 April 2019 (UTC)