Talk:Qapital

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Qapital/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zackmann08 (talk · contribs) 01:55, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Article is lacking citations for a number of claims, contains multiple WP:PEACOCK statements and in general seeks to WP:PROMOTE the company thus failing to remain WP:NEUTRAL. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:55, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

For the second GA reviewer that comes across this, please see the rest of this discussion here. CorporateM (Talk) 15:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi I just wanted to note that the edit [1] removing the tags linked improperly to WT:GAC instead of to here (or probably WP:GAC? one letter difference). I am a newcomer to GA's so I would be interested in commenting/participating, but not take responsibility of reviewing it by myself. :/--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 01:07, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

"Qapital savings account"

"Qapital directs each of its users to set savings goals, then automatically transfers money from their checking account to a Qapital savings account"

"Qapital savings account" seems improper here. Qapital is not a bank, right? It should be "to their savings account" unless I'm mistaken.--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 01:20, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

@Dwarf Kirlston: Qapital users spend their savings directly from the Qapital account, so Qapital does act as a quasi-bank of sorts. CorporateM (Talk) 12:44, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Qapital/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: JerrySa1 (talk · contribs) 03:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll take this. Overall it looks good, no dead links or any copyvio. This is a short article, so expect me to continue, and maybe finish, tomorrow. Jerry (talk) 03:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@CorporateM: Sorry for the delay, busy week, you'll see comments tomorrow.Jerry (talk) 03:22, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@CorporateM: I'm back to finish the review. As said before, there are only a few nitpicks.

• "for providing a low interest rate," should be " for providing a low-interest rate,"

 Done CorporateM (Talk) 16:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• Reference 6's "Retrieved May 13, 2016." should be "Retrieved 2016-05-13."

 Done CorporateM (Talk) 16:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• "It operates on the IFTTT (if this then that) principle." Wait, IFTTT is a web service, right? So does it use the service, or does it use it's methods? A bit unclear to me.

I am not entirely sure about this. In my first read of the source I thought IFTTT was simply an acronym for "if this then that" and didn't realize it was an actual software program. A closer read with this new context makes me wonder if Qapital is "a savings account version of IFTTT" or if it operates "with IFTTT." In any case, I'm not sure this technical detail is really that significant and the source is very weak (only used for basic description of how the product works), so I just trimmed it. CorporateM (Talk) 16:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   See above.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   2a is mostly met except for point above. 2b is met and the article is quite neutral for a paid editor. 2c is also met.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The article is a bit short, but all major areas are covered so that's expected.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Uses a neutral tone throughout article.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Can't find any problems, is quite stable.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Fair use rationale has been given for the 2nd image.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Thanks for reviewing @JerrySa1:! I have provided responses inset above and made corresponding fixes. CorporateM (Talk) 16:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

@CorporateM: Congratulations, I'm passing this article. I don't see any problems with this now.

Updates

It's been about a year since I submitted this article with a disclosed COI and subsequently worked with @JerrySa1: on a GA nomination. I would like to propose a few small changes to keep the article up-to-date and incorporate new sources. Additionally, during the GA review we mistakenly thought "if this then that" was referring to the concept, but new sources have made it more clear this is referring to the web-service. I've put my suggested updates at Talk:Qapital/draft with bold text to indicate changes. CorporateM (Talk) 18:24, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

It seems fine in my opinion. Some of it faintly reads like an advertisement, but I think that's me analyzing it too hard. It seems alright. Jerry (talk) 18:39, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look @JerrySa1:! WP:COI says I am suppose to ask someone else to make the updates for me. Do you mind making the updates? I can do it myself if you insist, but requesting someone else to make them is proper protocol. CorporateM (Talk) 11:20, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done Jerry (talk) 14:12, 29 August 2017 (UTC)