Talk:Rally.org

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rally.org article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Articles for creation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted on 5 April 2013 by reviewer Go Phightins! (talk · contribs).

The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.

16912 Rhiannon (talk · contribs) has been paid by Beutler Ink on behalf of Rally.org.

Review of this new article[edit]

Hi, in the interest of full disclosure I'd like to note here that I wrote the original draft of this article on behalf of Rally.org. The draft passed through AfC and was taken live. I've also asked for review by editors to make sure that it meets Wikipedia's guidelines and particularly that it is neutral and non-promotional.

User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz reviewed the draft and his comments (on his user Talk) were as follows:

I read your article and it seemed to be written in a NPOV fashion with more than sufficient documentation for a start-class article. (It seemed to be clear, also.)

I looked at the (first) WSJ article, and (1) somebody else should spot-check other references. It seemed to have been fairly cited. I did not (2) check for close paraphrasing with the WSJ, so somebody else should check that source and a few other a few sources.

It seemed that the WSJ and other high-quality reliable-sources were fairly represented. A conscientious reviewer should also (3) look at Google scholar or News, etc., to see that negative or controversial aspects of the topic are mentioned, if reported in high quality reliable sources, per due weight.

The main issue is that some sentences seem to run-on. Your lede has a long sentence which mentions specific film-makers (if my memory is correct), which is probably too much detail; the sentence is too convoluted now. Better prose is not a requirement for WP, but I'm sure that as the article nears completion you should want to polish the prose further.

I am especially busy now, and I am sorry that I cannot carry out the suggested steps (1--3) myself. Of course, you are welcome to link my comments here to the article proposal, in case they help another reviewer.

I'd welcome additional review of the draft from any interested editors. It would be great if someone could carry out the additional spot-check that Kiefer Wolfowitz recommended. Now that the draft is live, I would prefer not to make any edits as I follow the "bright line" rule, so help with small fixes to the prose would also be great. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 20:43, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Naveed Lalani[edit]

The article mentions three founders, but it seems that there was another who may have left later on. Naveed Lalani is mentioned a being a founder in this 2009 article: http://geekaustin.org/2009/01/03/tom-serres-piryx-long-tail-politics — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.71.241 (talk) 16:25, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]