Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Dalberg Global Development Advisors/1

Dalberg Global Development Advisors[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delist per consensus below and deteriorating weather conditions. Geometry guy 19:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has been discovered that this article was generated as paid PR. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Paid_editing#Statement_by_Ha!. The Wikipedia article creation job was advertised on Elance.[1]. It's a very laudatory article about a company. Most of the references were generated, directly or indirectly, by the company itself. A Google News search does not produce much information from reliable unaffiliated sources. --John Nagle (talk) 18:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zithan (talk · contribs), who created the article in its present form, has been desysopped and blocked by ArbCom for this. See [2]. --John Nagle (talk) 18:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing the article to GAR attention, despite the dispiriting circumstances. Fortunately, we don't need to dwell on them here, as the focus of GAR is the article content not the editing process. So, the question is: does the article currently meet the GA criteria or not? Geometry guy 21:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The references are rather weak. They're either Dalberg corporate output, or brief mentions of Dalberg in some other large document. The "Key people" section is something that doesn't usually appear in Wikipedia corporate articles. There's no criticism. It's all very corporate. Not good. --John Nagle (talk) 05:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. This reads more like the company's own advertising literature than it does an encyclopedia article. After reading I'm none the wiser as to what Dalberg actually does—"Dalberg lists expertise in the domains of: access to finance, education, global health, corporate engagement, energy and environment, economic policies, agriculture, conflict and humanitarian aid, and strategy and performance"—how big it is, who owns it, what its turnover is, or even how many employees it has (<150 apparently, which obviously includes none); I also have access to the environment, but I call it a front door, not an expertise. I'm not even convinced that the article clearly presents a case for this organisation's notability. A definite puff piece in my book. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Spam POV by sockpuppeting admin. There is another GA by him lying around YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, agree with the GAR nominator about the weak referencing. Cirt (talk) 09:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist for having 6 citations to primary sources. Thus, it is somewhat self-promotional. Alexius08 (talk) 11:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per nomination, and on the ground that the person who reviewed the article didn't have all the information needed to make a proper assessment. In particular, he/she wasn't aware of the COI and so probably assumed that the article was neutral. However, paid-for articles need to be looked at in much more depth than in a normal GA process. In particular, not only do we need to check the sources, but we also need to go look for alternative sources to make sure that some important details were not purposely omitted by the editor. Laurent (talk) 09:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist As per Cirt,Laurent1979 and YellowMonkey.Clearly paid advertsing Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist is the nicest thing I can say. Smallbones (talk) 17:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. There are multiple problems. The article is under-developed and has several MoS problems such as a list-like section, stubby lead, and poor composition. It is also short on citations to reliable sources. Majoreditor (talk) 03:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]