| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Peerspace article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Promotional content tag
editThe article includes buzzwords and uses flimsy listicle sources to promote the apparent value of this website without imparting neutral information. Name-dropping "a number of influencers" is another example of the kind of tedious promotional writing which gives the strong appearance of paid editing. Grayfell (talk) 07:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- I reviewed Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion. I do not see where buzzwords or "flimsy listicles" are being utilized. I have seen a company's partnerships listed on other articles so I did not see that as an issue. On taking a closer look, it is possible that the Open Door Awards do not need their own section but it does not appear very clearcut after reading the policy.
- Not sure why you are suggesting that but I am retired, not paid to edit Wikipedia as flattering as that would be. I would like to work with you to improve articles in the spirit of collaboration without making unfounded accusations. PazSeguro (talk) 16:23, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- Glad to hear it, but I do not accept that these accusations are unfounded. The article reads too much like a public-relations piece and fails WP:TONE.
- As one example, calling it a "a peer-to-peer marketplace" is both buzzwordy, and also misleading. The article is not about the "peer-to-peer marketplace", it is about the company. Using the company's own "press" landing page as a source is almost worse than nothing. The body of the article discusses funding, operation, and the history of the company, so the lead should reflect that. As for sources, avoid over-relying on WP:PRIMARY, press releases, and WP:TECHCRUNCH puffery. Grayfell (talk) 21:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)