 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment 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.
|
.
Fortune 500 edit
The article makes the claim that Sharefile is used by 99% of the fortune 500 companies for secure file transfer, but soruces this to the company's own website which is not an independent source, and certainly for this type of information, would require some qualification. -- Whpq (talk) 17:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
reads like advertsing edit
Please improve verbal style to imitate an encyclopedia 19:24, 14 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.193.8.98 (talk)
Revising this article edit
 | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Hello to those who may have this page watchlisted. I have been working on behalf of Citrix Systems, maker of ShareFile, to look for ways to improve this article. As I have a financial COI here, I will not be making any direct edits to the article myself.
The current version of the article has excessive information about features and quite a few details that are irrelevant, promotional, or not useful to the general reader. The article conflates the company that originally developed the software and the software itself. I've prepared a new draft of the article that remedies these issues. I've reframed the focus on the product itself, and not the previous company (although it is discussed). I've significantly trimmed the article and included only pertinent details, including a Product overview section to discuss what the product does.
This new draft can be viewed in my userspace here: User:Heatherer/ShareFile
Because I have prepared this draft on behalf of Citrix I am looking for editors to help me review it and to offer any suggestions for improvement. In particular, I'd like editors to review for any technical jargon or any language that is promotional. If it seems that this new draft is better than the version in place now, I'd ask that another editor take it live, replacing the current article. Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 19:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Done The revised article is better than before, so I have implemented the suggested changes. My only change to the draft was to change "IT" in the lead to "users". It still reads a little promotionally, but I can't put my finger on any specific sentences or phrases that cause that, and it is better than it was. Thanks! — crh 23 (Talk) 17:52, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
