Sporcle edit
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe that this is a great article, yet I have no idea what level other people think it is.
Thanks, buffbills7701 01:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Review by W Nowicki
Personally I would assess as "start" class, but then I am more familiar with the technical subjects and not "culture". The major problem is that most sources appear to be "primary". Of course a company's own web site is going to be biased (intentional or not) in talking about their own product. To survive a notability delete challenge, you need to cite a reasonable number of independent sources that cover the subject in depth. There is nothing in the article about the company behind this. Is it just one student and an app? Does the company have perhaps any capital or employees? Private companies of course do not need to make that information public, but that is one reason why articles on such small enterprises is questionable. A quick look at the TechFlash article for example has the founder saying "we" but it implies that there is no funding nor perhaps dedicated development resources, though perhaps at least one employee, as of 2010. It too is just some quotes of the founder. I would say reduce to one or two citations of the company's own web site. Certainly remove the "slogan" and "mission statement" since they are totally self-provided and give no information about the subject. Delete the second paragraph of the lead. As for style, one nit is inconsistent date formats. The body uses USA style Month day, Year, which makes sense if the company is located in the USA. But then references should use that format too. And each citation needs to be explicit if it is sourced to the company web site or is independent. W Nowicki (talk) 16:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)