Should this still be considered a stub (the stub templates have been removed)? --J. Atkins (talk) 17:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
- IMHO this is still a stub. The B&E project doesn't yet have a formal standard for a company article, so I use the standard of what would I expect for an investment or competitor analysis report. Here are some suggestions of things you could do to promote this to "start" class:
- marketing: discuss the company's market position - who are its major competitors, what is its market share, what does this company do better? what does it do worse? If one of its competitors holds an overwhelming marketshare (and we both know who *that* is), what has allowed it to survive? Be sure to cite sources outside the company. Also be wary of citing trade journals - they may be all that is available but often the articles are promo pieces by the company and would not meet wikipedia's standards of Wikipedia: NPOV.
- finance: discuss its financial history or legal structure (if the information is available). Are annual reports available? what about profitability?
- organizational: discuss management style. What pattern do they fit in? Have they done anything innovative?
- The other reason I haven't raised it above a stub is that the article only discusses Ability Plus's achievements. This is somewhat tolerable in a stub because a stub is clearly a work in progress. However, if we elevate it to start, I would feel it needed to carry a "reads like advert" box until this problem is fixed.
- Best of luck Egfrank 13:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
- Yep, you're right. When I started this article I couldn't find much out about Ability to put on here other than reviews -- their website doesn't contain much information. I have reverted back to the most recent version with the stubs in (by me) and I'll leave it at that. I get what you mean about sounding like an advertisment though. --J. Atkins (talk | contribs) 14:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
