After a closer look, I think this article fails
GA criteria 2a and 4. It's not indisputably promotional in tone, since it doesn't use obvious promotional phrases, but for sure it is not
NPOV. All the information in it is presented as positive for the company, and a lot of the sources are not impartial to the software marketing industry, to say the least. Now to rant a little bit, if I may: I see this as a tricky issue for a lot of Wikipedia articles. In many cases, simply having published detailed articles about companies, even if the information is fully accurate, is often inherently promotional. It can be like advertising through objective material. Wikipedians created this persistent and often overlooked problem for themselves by choosing to write articles about companies. But I recognize there's no going back now, and ironically I've written some articles about organizations.
Jsayre64(talk)05:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)reply
After a closer look, I think this article fails
GA criteria 2a and 4. It's not indisputably promotional in tone, since it doesn't use obvious promotional phrases, but for sure it is not
NPOV. All the information in it is presented as positive for the company, and a lot of the sources are not impartial to the software marketing industry, to say the least. Now to rant a little bit, if I may: I see this as a tricky issue for a lot of Wikipedia articles. In many cases, simply having published detailed articles about companies, even if the information is fully accurate, is often inherently promotional. It can be like advertising through objective material. Wikipedians created this persistent and often overlooked problem for themselves by choosing to write articles about companies. But I recognize there's no going back now, and ironically I've written some articles about organizations.
Jsayre64(talk)05:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)reply