Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Scene7/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates | Scene7
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 22:58, 6 December 2008 [1].

Scene7

edit
Nominator(s): Gary King (talk)

I created this article and brought it to DYK, where its notability was questioned. Since then, I have expanded the article and have brought it to one Peer Review and through the Good Article process, and I think it's now ready for an FA star. Gary King (talk) 23:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • Scene7's technology allow users to manipulate product images by zooming in and rotating products around, simulating how merchandise is inspected in retail stores. - Remove "around".
  • In 1998 the company, with its staff of 40 developers, was sold to Broderbund, itself owned by The Learning Company, a subsidiary of Mattel Inc.. - Only one full stop.
  • Engage was the parent company of both Cascade and MidSystems, two companies that were each one of the first companies that tried to automate prepress production with customers in newspapers and large printers. - This could be worded better.

–Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done Gary King (talk) 16:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Thanks for catching that; I've replaced the image in the article. Gary King (talk) 20:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've left them a comment, but they haven't edited in four years. The image says "selfmade" so that sounds like they took it themselves. Gary King (talk) 22:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It does seem so, yes. Awadewit (talk) 02:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do see this article in the list of GA's, but there's nothing in the milestones on the talk page about going through GAN; do you remember when it passed GAN? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now it's showing up when I hit refresh, Nov 14. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is shorter than most FACs (a little over 1200 words). This is a current "hot" issue that I have no opinion on, so I won't support or oppose. However, I did some copyediting, and I have some questions.
  • "allow customers to interact with them": with the companies, the products, the images, or the websites?
  • "to run the company's computers and allow Scene7 to pay only for the resources that it uses." The user's company, or the company that owns Scene7? I would think the user's company, because of this from the ref: "Isilon's 'pay as you grow' clustered architecture reportedly enables users to scale capacity". But then it's not clear what's meant when you say Scene7 is "running the company's computers"; running on the user's computer network, perhaps?
  • I'd prefer "..." to "[...]" for ellipses.
  • - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 23:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I clarified the sentence. The other one is for the Scene7 company. I prefer [...] as it's more obvious that it's not part of the original text. Gary King (talk) 23:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even though WP:MOS seems to me to only just barely allow "[...]" if you're not trying to distinguish it from another "...", and that recommendation follows AP Stylebook, I have no problem supporting [...] if you prefer, since it does make it absolutely clear what's meant. On the other sentence, I still think the average reader might not be clear which computer Style7 is running on. Other than that, I'm happy with the language, and I'll be happy to support this article, if other people who know more about FAC than I do want to support the idea that the article is comprehensive. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 14:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright I tried to clarify it a bit further. Hopefully it's better? Gary King (talk) 16:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's good. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 19:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I thought about how long I wanted to hang back on the "comprehensiveness" issue, and I decided I'm not comfortable leaving the implication hanging in the air that I can't support yet because the article might be faulty. I really have no opinion on comprehensiveness; it ought to be a community decision. So I've written up a standard disclaimer. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by karanacs. Company articles are really hard to write well. This one seems to be a mix of overly detailed bits and areas where there is just not a lot of context. I'm also concerned that so much is sourced to primary sources.

  • There are a lot of primary sources in the article (about a third of them) - to Adobe and to Pr Newswire/PR Web, which is essentially press releases, right? Even the BusinessWeek overview is all press releases.
  • I've never heard of TelecomWorldWire - is it a secondary source or does it regurgitate press releases?
  • In the lead, I'd replace ecatalogs with online catalogs - more people are likely to understand what that means.
  • "efforts are being made to expand into Europe" - what exactly does this mean? What efforts are they undertaking?
  • In the beginning of the company section, I would mention that Scene7 is a subsidiary of Adobe Systems. For those that don't read the lead, this would be a good intro, and will tie it together with the fact that they use so many Adobe products
  • Did they use Adobe products before being purchased by Adobe Systems?
  • Is it really important to know that they are customers of Isilon Systems? This seems like a bit of excess detail. Could just say, "Rather than maintain their own servers, since August 2008 Scene7 rents storage space, allowing them to pay for only the resources that are used."
  • I am confused in the sentence about Individual Software as to which of the companies is developing the home design software - the pronoun is ambiguous
  • That deal was signed in 2001 - any progress?
  • Are the exact dates of when they signed agreements with various companies really important?
  • Much of the information about the competitors is repetitive. It is obviously a selling point that you can zoom in on the merchandise images, but not really necessary to be mentioned so many times.
  • Are they the only company that allows zooming in? What differentiates them from other companies that offer the same service (anything)?
  • "room decoration projects" - what types of projects? Changing walls, arranging furniture, previewing wall colors or wall paper?
  • Do we need to know the names of the senior VP of marketing and the president/COO of GoodHome.com? I see that Mack is referenced later, but he is the only one.
  • the GoodHome.com technology was transferred...what exactly does that mean? Did they sell it someone else to make a go of it? Did Broderbund just make a new subsidiary for it? Did they just rename themselves and reposition? It looks like Mack stayed on.
  • Any details on their "fail[ure] to establish"? Did they go bankrupt?
  • Any info on how the name Scene7 was chosen?
  • "During the dot-com bubble, Scene7 spent five years working on a business plan that ultimately failed to take off and lost a significant amount of capital" - is this referring to its time as Goodhome.com? The five-years mark and the fact that they got new financing in 2001 doesn't really mesh well
  • Any info on what the failed business plan was? Did it fail to be brought to the market, or did it fail after it got to market?
  • Why did they change locations from San Rafeal to Hamilton Landing?
  • The history section contains a lot of info on the amount of funding raised, but little on any milestones the company might have reached - numbers of employees, capitalization, etc...
  • Acquisition should really be under history. It is part of the history and it makes more sense that way
  • " will eventually be replaced with the Adobe Systems brand" - any sense of what is meant by "eventually" months/years/decades?

Karanacs (talk) 19:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've gotten everything that I could get. A few things, like more information on employees and capitalization, is not available since it has been a private company for most of its life. Gary King (talk) 20:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you address my questions about sourcing? I noticed that at least 1/3 of the sources are primary sources, and I'm not sure whether Telecomworldwire is or not. Karanacs (talk) 18:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the references don't have any alternatives that I can find. If you want, some can be removed; I've replaced what I can, though. The only remaining primary sources are: reference #1, #4, #5, #11, and #14, so that's about a quarter of the total. Also, these references are used primarily for business deals, etc. rather than the company's history. Gary King (talk) 20:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Scene7/archive1&oldid=1079290576"