Talk:Janrain/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
COI
In accordance with Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide, I have chosen to disclose that I have a personal connection to this subject (hint: Janrain has a large staff and I live in PDX). I will spare details for privacy purposes, but my main purpose in writing this article is to benefit Wikipedia and its mission. I believe this article is written from a neutral perspective and has been constructed from independent, reliable sources. The second link above provides the following summary, which I believe I have followed appropriately:
- Be transparent about your conflict of interest (
Done) - Subjects require significant coverage in independent reliable sources. ( Done)
- Your role is to inform and reference, not promote or sell. ( Done)
- Be extremely cautious about the risks of editing articles about yourself or your clients ( Done|N/A)
- If writing a draft, write without bias, as if you don't work for the company or personally know the subject. ( Done)
- State facts and statistics, don't be vague or general. ( Done)
- Take time to get sources and policy right. ( Done)
- Get neutral, uninvolved, disinterested editors to review your draft. (
Doing...) - Work with the community and we'll work with you. ( Doing...)
- Communicate, communicate, communicate. ( Doing...)
My goal is to promote this article to Good status. I understand this will require review and assistance from other members of the community, which is great. I invite all to examine this article carefully to make sure the content is fair and accurate. Feel free to contact me if you have any concerns. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- To start, I've requested a copy edit from the Guild of Copy Editors. I realize this review is about the prose, and not the article's content and its accuracy, but a peer review will follow, then a Good article review. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- Done ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:11, 19 December 2015 (UTC)