Talk:Tipalti

Reminder to Editors

I recommend editors to read Wikipedia:Manual of Style, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:FAQ/Article subjects.

It's a good first step that previous editors have disclosed their conflicts of interest and connections to the company, but Wikipedia is not a place for self-promotion nor a list or collection of milestones and company trivia.

I'm going to work on updating the page for Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I have no connection to the company and am not affiliated in any way to Tipalti.

Similarly, there seems to be a back-and-forth on whether Tipalti is an Israeli company in recent edits. According to recent Wikipedia:Reliable sources (i.e., trusted online news articles) Tipalti was founded by Israelis, but the company appears to be American, given its U.S. headquarters and incorporation status. -Quixotic Rick (talk) 03:17, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I removed the headers, as I rewrote the page, primarily to fix the Wikipedia:PL issues in the History section. I also added reliable, news articles as sources throughout. Some of the previous references were actually Tipalti press releases published on other websites through a newswire service.

I dropped some of the descriptions of the company's products into a new, dedicated Products and services category to make the page easier to read.

I'll keep an eye on the page, but I'd appreciate if others who are subject-matter experts in the company and industry could help contribute, keeping to avoid Wikipedia:COI and maintain Wikipedia:NPOV. Quixotic Rick (talk) 20:32, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Untitled

I am the director of marketing for [Tipalti] and am submitting what I hope is a non-promotional page to identify the company. Thanks!

Awards List for Tipalti Page

Currently, the Tipalti Wikipedia article page does not have an "Awards and Recognition" section. I would like to request it be added to the Article page below the "History" section and be populated with the following award wins:

TrustRadius’ Top Rated Accounts Payable Software 2022

Rank 23 on Fortune’s 40 Best Small and Medium Workplaces in the Bay Area in 2021

No. 1260 on Inc. 5000 in 2021

TrustRadius’ Best of Finance Software 2021

Leader in the IDC MarketScape: Worldwide SaaS and Cloud-Enabled Midmarket Accounts Payable Applications 2020-2021 Vendor Assessment

Spend Matters’ 50 Providers to Know for 2020

No. 1475 on Inc. 5000 in 2020

No. 1196 on Inc. 5000 in 2019

Tipalti Named to Deloitte’s Technology Fast 500™ in 2019

Tipalti Named to Deloitte’s Technology Fast 500™ in 2018

No. 1559 on Inc. 5000 in 2018

Ranked 15th in San Francisco Business Times’ 2018 Bay Area Best Places To Work

2017 Bay Area Best Places To Work from the San Francisco Business Times and the Silicon Valley Business Journal

LisaAtTipalti (talk) 22:24, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi LisaAtTipalti, thanks for the edit request. I wanted to ask whether any of these Awards have articles on Wikipedia? (e.g. List of Fortune 500 computer software and information companies or 100 Best Companies to Work For) Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and an exhaustive list of awards would seem more promotional than adding to the article. Additionally, is there coverage for any of the above awards in independent news sources (i.e. not the body awarding them)? While the following is a draft Wikipedia guideline, I think it provides a useful rule of thumb for considering which awards to include: Wikipedia:Awards and accolades. I have marked your request declined for now, but after you reply with more information, please remove the "|D" in the {{request edit}} to re-open your request. Best, Spencer^T•C 22:25, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Also note why another editor removed the reference to the Inc. 5000 here: [1]. Spencer^T•C 22:26, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

References

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Nominator: Quixotic Rick (talk · contribs) 20:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Sir MemeGod (talk · contribs) 16:39, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I will be reviewing this shortly. :) SirMemeGod  16:39, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   While it is well-written, it is very short for what we expect.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   There are citations in the lede, much of the information in the lede isn't mentioned anywhere else (e.g. that the company is headquartered in Foster City, California), seems somewhat promotional in nature, particularly regarding the "Notable Clients" part near the end of the article.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   No serious issues with the layout itself of the article, refs are in their appropriate section.

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   Crunchbase (ref 14) is considered unreliable. Others, including TechCrunch.com (ref 6) and Business Insider (ref 4) are marginally reliable.

   C. It contains no original research:

   Passes with no issue.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   I found a 7.4% similarity with pymnts.com, which is too low to be plagarism. No other issues found here.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Seems to address that the company is about and it's growth, which is what we look for. The issue is length, the article is neither long enough or has enough information.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   No issue, doesn't go into unnecessary detail.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   Seems slightly promotional in nature. As already stated, the "Notable Clients" section doesn't seem very useful other than for promotional reasons.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   Edit War Checker found nothing, and a page history search also found no recent disputes.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   One image, which is improperly sourced (called "Own Work" when it clearly isn't) and will most likely now be deleted.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Only one image, not enough to accurately convey the topic. Logo also has no caption.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Unfortunately I am going to fail this nomination due to not meeting the following criteria: 1b, 6a & 6b. The article is short for what we expect out of a good article and the promotional tone does not represent Wikipedia's best work. No images (since the one is a copyright violation), among other things which I do not believe can be fixed in a timely manner. I suggest that you work to lengthen the article, find an image or two (the logo may fall under a fair use rationale) and then renominate. Thanks! :) SirMemeGod  16:54, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.