Talk:Renaissance Learning

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Wisconsin Low‑importance

	Wisconsin portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wisconsin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Wisconsin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WisconsinWikipedia:WikiProject WisconsinTemplate:WikiProject WisconsinWisconsin articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Companies Stub‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles

Stub This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.

??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

Archives[edit]

Archive 1: February 2006: Criticism discussion. (This discussion is no longer applicable since the sections have been moved to the appropriate product pages.)
Archive 2: March 2006 - June 2006.

Start status[edit]

Can someone provide comments on why this article has "Start" status (see the box above)? I would like to help improve it, but I don't know what needs work. — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 05:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Renaissance Learning. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061030092701/http://www.eschoolnews.com:80/resources/surveys/editorial/rca/eSNOct06RCA.pdf to http://www.eschoolnews.com/resources/surveys/editorial/rca/eSNOct06RCA.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:33, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Absurd sources[edit]

[1] was used as a source for the assertion that "Renaissance products have been tested". Anyone who had actually read the source would see that it says nothing whatsoever about the "testing" of Renaissance products. So I removed the bogus source.
[2] is used as a source for the assertion that "Using the data from Accelerated Reader and Accelerated Reader 360, What Kids Are Reading highlights the books and nonfiction articles K–12 students read cover to cover each year." The cited source doesn't even mention What Kids Are Reading. So I removed the bogus source.

I'm not sure why Xb2u7Zjzc32 is repeatedly inserting random sources into the article that are completely unrelated to the content for which they're supposed to provide reliable support. It makes no sense. 32.218.35.117 (talk) 02:15, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paid Edit[edit]

My most recent edit to the article was a paid edit. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 15:13, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

removed Templates concerning "advert, buzzword and COI"[edit]

This article is much too small for such criticisms. Of course nothing has changed since 2014, no one has added anything. Be bold and ask for article deletion, rather than these silly frivolous complaints that were made be people too lazy to do any of it themselves. Putting such templates up without any reach out or follow up is just vandalism with a sneer. It's easily foreseeable that no one is going to actually make substantial changes soon. If someone close to or within the company made edits, they certainly didn't add anything biased, uninformative or advertisement-like. And if the company does unpredictably well or poorly, the article will need informed contributers. Frankly I don't see any other way of significant contributions being made to the article. Cuvtixo (talk) 08:27, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]