Talk:HubSpot/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 05:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Critical reception section recommendation

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 05:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Note to self: Old reference to Criticism and Controversy sect at 23 February 2010. — Cirt (talk) 05:56, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for picking this one up Cirt! I use to have a COI here a year or two ago (at the time, I was not as well set-up to do higher-quality COI work) and as a HubSpot customer and long-time follower, I grew increasingly irritated that the article never improved. I crammed it out over 2-3 days. Just as an FYI/for reference, there is one more discussion string at: User_talk:Edge3#Request_for_input and here CorporateM (Talk) 15:08, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

The article could use a subsection devoted to Critical reception, both positive and negative. — Cirt (talk) 17:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Usually when there isn't a large volume of professional reviews, I just merge it into the software section. From the current software section: "In a competitive review conducted by analyst firm Gleensight, specialist vendors ranked higher than HubSpot in individual categories like SEO, or email marketing, but HubSpot had the highest rank for "overall value".[43] Many of HubSpot's individual applications have "point competitors" that have more sophisticated products in that area, but HubSpot is simpler and provides an all-in-one approach[42][43]"

I didn't find enough reviews in reliable sources to expand it. If you look at the prior Criticisms section, it was mostly not that critical and used blogs and tweets as sources. CorporateM (Talk) 17:39, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

It's been a while since then. More research could be done now to find Critical reception. — Cirt (talk) 02:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually I managed to dig up a couple very thorough reviews. Plenty to create a dedicated sub-section. Though it is a little repetitive because they all say virtually the same thing. If we wanted to make it longer, CRM Search has reviews of HubSpot's tools in individual categories, but IMO that would be better as a link under Further Reading. CorporateM (Talk) 16:05, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Easy fix: Remove the redundant info from the other sects, and add it to new sect titled Critical reception. — Cirt (talk) 17:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I already put it in a "Reception" section. Why do you keep saying "Critical Reception" though? Most of the reviews are pretty positive-to-neutral and "Reception" is pretty much the de-facto for product reviews. CorporateM (Talk) 17:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

"Critical" doesn't mean negative. Please move the sect to the bottom of the body of the article, as is normally the case for location of these sects in articles. — Cirt (talk) 17:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Aww, you're referring to the second definition. If you feel strongly, I don't mind moving the Reception section down, but I kept it with Software in this case, because even though they are a software company what they are most notable for is their marketing, but the Reception section refers only to the software. CorporateM (Talk) 17:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I am. And yes, please do so, thank you. — Cirt (talk) 21:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done CorporateM (Talk) 21:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Stability review

1. Article edit history inspections going back over one month shows the article is stable but for some IP edits which were promptly dealt with. Going back a little bit further it looks like there were some valid concerns raised in edit summaries by Ruby Murray. That doesn't cause instability for purposes of this GA Review, but it'd be nice to hear feedback from Ruby Murray.
2. Talk page at present and talk page edit history shows no ongoing conflicts going back over one month. However it should be noted there are some interesting comments about the article at Talk:HubSpot/Archive 1 and on present version of talk page.

For above evaluation purposes, article is deemed stable to proceed with rest of GA Review. — Cirt (talk) 06:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I only have a basic knowledge of how GA Review works, but I'll help if I can. The article still has a mildly promotional tone, which can probably be fixed with a bit of re-wording. Examples:

• "HubSpot is also known for the marketing it does for itself": "known" by whom? Does this belong in the lead?
• "The company is active on Twitter": What does "active" mean, if anything, and does this belong in the lead?
• "Within four months it had 26,000 users" has a journalistic tone, and could be rephrased to "as of (date) the company claimed it had 26,000 users"
• "Many of HubSpot's individual applications have "point competitors" that have more sophisticated products in that area, but HubSpot is simpler and provides an all-in-one approach[42][43] intended for non-technical users.": how is it "simpler"? "all-in-one" is used in three places in the article: what does it mean, and how does an "all-in-one suite" differ from other suites?

Hope that's useful - it's more of a critique of what I'd like to see changed than an opinion on article stability, I guess. I'm happy to help with any fixes for which there's a consensus, and help move it to GA status. I'd imagine that articles about companies and products are the toughest type of article to make into a GA, but again I'm a novice at this. Ruby Murray 12:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

CorporateM, please instead of just using "done", please also note each time what you did, more specifically. Also, please remove your comments from being interspersed, above, and instead comment below my reply, here. Thank you! — Cirt (talk) 14:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Ruby Murray. I gave it a good culling through to try to trim or copyedit the promotionalism. The Lead was substantially re-written based on your comments. I only trimmed 1/3 of the "all-in-one" mentions, because this is the biggest way HubSpot differs from other vendors and part of why they are notable. Of course the phrase is over-used in marketing which leads to it becoming meaningless, but I think used properly here. Other vendors usually offer tools for just SEO or just content management. HubSpot isn't the best at any of them (quite buggy too), but it's got it all in one place. CorporateM (Talk) 15:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Image review

1. File:HubSpotlogo.png = appropriate fair use rationale on image page. Y
2. File:HubSpot Offices2.png = image should be moved to Commons, see Wikipedia:Moving files to the Commons for help and specifically Wikipedia:Moving_files_to_the_Commons#Transferring_using_CommonsHelper is a nice way to do it. Y

— Cirt (talk) 06:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done Now on commons and tagged. CorporateM (Talk) 15:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Alright, thank you! — Cirt (talk) 17:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Prior GA Review

I'd like to hear from Eric Corbett on his take on the article's state as differentiated from the prior GA Review which is archived at Talk:HubSpot/GA1. — Cirt (talk) 17:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I've offered my opinion on my talk page, as requested.[1] Eric Corbett 15:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I've made some of Eric's copyediting changes. I am not a very good writer so my GA reviews almost always include some copyediting problems ;-) CorporateM (Talk) 16:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much to Eric Corbett for offering those comments. I'll ruminate on this a bit further. — Cirt (talk) 16:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Not GA at this time

I'm sorry but the article is not GA quality at this time.

I have to echo the significant concerns about NPOV raised from the first GA Review at Talk:HubSpot/GA1.

The article's tone overall is not neutral.

It seems to come across as a promotional puff piece for the company.

It is getting a little bit better, and certainly better than the version reviewed from the first GA Review.

But it still needs quite a lot of work.

The GA Nominator, CorporateM, acknowledged a conflict of interest with relation to this article: "I use to have a COI here a year or two ago (at the time, I was not as well set-up to do higher-quality COI work) and as a HubSpot customer and long-time follower, I grew increasingly irritated that the article never improved. I crammed it out over 2-3 days."

Perhaps it would be best for others from the Wikipedia community instead of CorporateM to take over further quality improvement on the article itself, and for CorporateM to instead relegate himself to participation in discussion on the article's talk page.

— Cirt (talk) 02:22, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I trimmed this article with the goal of making it read like an encyclopedia entry, not a company brochure. Chisme (talk) 19:13, 8 June 2016 (UTC)