# Talk:Smartsheet

The current article has some promotionalism that is typically indicative of conflicted editing. The lead focuses excessively on customers, it has a dedicated section for Awards and the Features section just lists features, instead of providing a summary and description based on reliable sources. 
I've put a draft together at Talk:Smartsheet/draft that I would like to suggest as a proposed replacement for the current article that would correct this. It would also make the article more up-to-date, better sourced, more comprehensive, etc. I would also like to add some images and a short video, but will have to work those out later for copyright reasons. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 18:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I took a look at the draft. It is indeed significantly better than what was there. I made some copyedits and swapped it in. @CorporateM: what do you typically do with the drafts? history merge? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
@Rhododendrites: Thanks for reviewing! Regarding the technical process of how the draft is merged, I'm indifferent.
If you care to review any others, I'm always scrounging for an editor to look at this kind of stuff.
I'll get started on squaring away the images on this page, starting with the logo. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 02:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Smartsheet/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Samtar (talk · contribs) 09:03, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


### Criteria
### Review
Well-written:

Verifiable with no original research:

Broad in its coverage:

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

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

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:


#### Result
#### Discussion
I plan to finish the rest of the review process this evening (GMT) @CorporateM: apologies for the delay -- samtar whisper 12:09, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


### Additional notes
It's been almost two years since I brought this page up to GA status with the help of @Rhododendrites:. Since then the company has raised more funding, its user base has doubled, and new sources have been published. I have placed some suggested updates to the page at Talk:Smartsheet/draft that would bring the page up to date and would like to request an unaffiliated editor consider incorporating them if they improve the article. 
I am hesitant as to whether the lawsuit with Amazon (included in the draft) warrants inclusion and leave it up to the editor reviewing. From what I can tell, Smartsheet did prompt the lawsuit by offering to hire an Amazon employee but was not otherwise substantially involved in the litigation or settlement that was between Amazon and the Smartsheet employee. CorporateM (Talk) 21:35, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

@CorporateM: I've updated the article. I left out the lawsuit since Smartsheet wasn't directly involved, only an employee. — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:17, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Requesting a few minor updates located at Talk:Smartsheet/draft, which includes three revisions:

Update employee count
Add a recent acquisition
Add that it started a user conference
Thank you in advance for your time and attention in helping keep the article up to date.
CorporateM (Talk) 16:58, 26 January 2018 (UTC)


### Reply 26-JAN-2018
 Partially implemented 

Even though an article on software, information on the employee count and acquisition was added.
Information on their customer conference — curiously labeled as a user conference — was declined, as it promotes a sales event.
Regards, Spintendo ᔦᔭ 19:24, 26 January 2018 (UTC)


### Smartsheet
Article (edit | visual edit | history) ·  Article talk (edit | history) ·  Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
 Result: Kept Not really fishy and found a citation for the release date AIRcorn (talk) 00:41, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
The GA status of this article strikes me as fishy- it was initiated by CorporateM (talk · contribs), a wikipedian who admits to running a business that "contributed more than 50 Good Article-ranked pages about businesses and individuals", and completed by Samtar (talk · contribs), who I wasn't able to find much on.
As for the article itself, it's decently NPOV and does an okay job of talking about the company and the product, but there's not a lot of content. If GA is supposed to identify articles that are better than average, but not at FA status, I wouldn't argue that this page meets that criteria. Given my inexperience as an editor, I'm nominating it for community reassessment. Rivselis (talk) 21:52, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I reviewed the article and I must say I was not really impressed. I could immediately tell that criteria 1a and 1b of GAC needed attention. I also uploaded a new logo, added two {{citation needed}} tags, two {{Clarification needed}} tags, and fixed one contradictory statement. (And I learned about all of these today.) It still needs more work. flowing dreams (talk page) 10:52, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
It is odd. The review is signed Samtar, but has only been edited by There'sNoTime. Maybe they renamed their account, but I would have expected the contribs to be linked. Anyway TNT has been around a long time and I think is even an admin, so the review is not as much as a concern as first impressions might suggest. CorporateM is pretty open about what they do so that is not really an issue. I would say going through the GA process is a good thing for paid editing as it brings other eyes to the article.  AIRcorn (talk) 00:51, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Vendors call it "work management".

 https://www.smartsheet.com/

So, wouldn't it be better to change the expression to "work management"? Mocha c jp (talk) 14:39, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

No. They're synonyms. We can use word we actually have an article for. MrOllie (talk) 14:47, 26 November 2022 (UTC)