Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 16912 Rhiannon (talk | contribs) at 17:01, 25 January 2018 (→Proposed addition: Updating edit request template to confirm this was done). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

	HubSpot was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result September 12, 2012 Good article nominee Not listed January 31, 2014 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Companies Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Misplaced Pages. 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Companies To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Misplaced Pages: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 Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Marketing & Advertising Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Marketing & Advertising, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Marketing on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Marketing & AdvertisingWikipedia:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingTemplate:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingMarketing & Advertising Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: Boston Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts - Boston (assessed as Low-importance).

The following Misplaced Pages contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. CorporateM (talk · contribs) This user has declared a connection.

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 HubSpot.

Archives

April 2009 to April 2012

New text and citations

The “Products and services” section had only a one sentence description of the software, which is the company’s core offering. I added a more complete description, including citations to mainstream media publications and other independent sources. I also renamed the section to “Products,” since training and consulting services are a relatively minor component of what HubSpot does; and I edited the lead section as I suggested above, to add clarity. RebeccaChurt (talk) 21:03, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Everything about this article needs more independent and reliable sources which over HubSpot in significant details. Routine announcements, rebroadcast of your own press releases and such can't be used for source building per policy. Even after a substantial amount of trimming was done on this article, there are still excess references to your own press release. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 10:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Canteloupe2, no objections here. Your trimming of details and excess references makes sense to me, and I hope to join you in the coming weeks in trimming it back further. Your edits to the text I added seem fine; your phrasing around the dual meaning of "HubSpot" is better, and I understand why the blog entry you questioned is less authoritative than other sources like the NY Times and Forbes. I had thought those sources would be an improvement on some of the less-known blogs, and worthwhile for describing the core product offering; I see you removed them along with some of the specific text. Do you disagree with using those sources, or just the way I phrased the description? I tried not to introduce bias in my description of the product, but your removal of a couple sentences seems fine.

The way it was written looks like a keyword spam looking for way to fill with buzz words. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

You tagged the new content as "reading like an advertisement," but after that you edited that text. The results are fine with me, and I removed the citation you flagged as “dubious.” You removed a couple sentences as well, so now it reads:

Reading through it, the tone and positive touch still sounds promotional. A bit in the products section and definitely in the corporate leadership section; the latter still makes liberal use of self published source which attempts to use your own personnel as noteworthy reference. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The HubSpot software provides software for businesses to coordinate their online marketing efforts. The software is offered in three subscription options.

A free product, Marketing Grader, was launched in 2011 to replace Website Grader. It analyzes a range of online marketing activities and then provides a report on what to fix on the website or blog to increase leads.

If you think the text is OK now, would you mind removing the "advertisement" banner in the "products" section? Or if not, maybe you could describe what you think still needs to be done in that section? RebeccaChurt (talk) 19:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll look at it in a few days. I think tone should be what you would expect to read in a real encyclopedia or a summary you'd expect on a court briefing that describes the products offered by company. Right now, there's a hint of advocacy tone in my opinion. One of the reasons it looks like advertisement is that it looks like the contents are written in a way HubSpot wants it written, then, references are found to go around that, such as the twitter(ref), linkedin (ref0, blog(ref) so on rather than saying as covered by independent sources. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, these are the references I added earlier -- do they seem worthwhile to you for pulling information about the company (even if the way I phrased it before wasn't ideal)?

• Calao, J.J. (March 15, 2012). "HubSpot Ready To Pounce As Traditional Marketing Gets "Obliterated"". Forbes.
• Dahl, Darren (October 17, 2012). "Small Players Seek an Alternative to the Expense of Pay-Per-Click". New York Times.

About naming the section "Products" or "Products and services" - I am trying to follow the standard of basing the article on independent sources. As far as I know, independent sources have focused exclusively on HubSpot's product offerings. Any services the company offers are a tiny portion of what we do or are known for; I think this is reflected in all the independent coverage of the company. (The source you included about services was not an independent source - it's a minor page from our web site.) -RebeccaChurt (talk) 21:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

So you contend that "services" such as training is bunk and there's no such thing as service based offering available just to paying customers? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 21:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe I made my point above. -RebeccaChurt (talk) 17:48, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Zarella's tweetsuite

Was this AFTER or BEFORE his involvement with HubSpot? I'm asking this as I'm evaluating whether this is related to the notability of this as it relates to the company HubSpot.Cantaloupe2 (talk) 22:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

It appears that there is too much content in the leadership section anyway, including the reference to Dan Zarrella, so why don't we just remove that content except for the part about the co-foudners?! -RebeccaChurt (talk) 18:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

What is it?

I'm afraid a quick read of this article has left me with no clear idea of what this product is or what this company does, and how it or its services differ from similar ones.207.194.133.9 (talk) 22:40, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Improvements/overhaul

I use to have a conflict of interest on this article about one-year ago and it has been bothering me ever since, because most of my COI works I have been bringing up to the "Good Article" standard. It does not show well on my track-record or my credibility/reputation as a quality contributor on Misplaced Pages in my COI role to have even former clients who do not have impeccably neutral and high-quality articles. HubSpot is also a topic of general interest (I am also a HubSpot customer, long-time observer and most of my volunteer edits are on marketing topics). So I went ahead and boldly re-worked the article into something GAN-ready. CorporateM (Talk) 21:24, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

2014 GA review

For anyone who'd like to see the GA review notes from 2014, they can be found here.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Additional editing, clean up and improvements

This is a copy of a comment that was mistakenly added to the GA review notes.

• "I trimmed this article with the goal of making it read like an encyclopedia entry, not a company brochure." Chisme (talk) 2:13 pm, 8 June 2016, Wednesday

-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:18, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm happy to discuss and collaborate with anyone who wants to improve the article. I'll come back in a few days and work on the excess amount of quotes and move towards a removal the Quote clean up tag I've placed on it.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the quotes and removed the tag.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:21, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Content removed

A comparative analysis conducted by VentureSkies compared data security in HubSpot’s CMS with WordPress-based websites. It showed that HubSpot maintains an increased level of information security, as well as protection against hacking, through a set of security measures including human factors (e.g., 24/7 monitoring), restricted access to hosted data (limited to Web server level, no file server access), restrained JavaScript and multilayered infrastructure security embracing network, storage and compute environments.ref name=VentureSkiesOnHubSpotWordPress>Scholten, Ulrich. "Hackers, Phishing, Databreach: Why HubSpot Is More Secure than WordPress". VentureSkies. Retrieved 6 January 2016.

Removed because Venture Skies is a self described "Hubspot partner" and has written several glowing reviews of Hubspots products.

Likewise The Sales Lion is also a "HubSpot partner" and I've removed that source and text too.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposed addition

It is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected article at D. (edit · history · last · links · protection log) This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

Hi there! I'm here to request the addition of a new section to this article on the company's HubSpot CRM Free product. HubSpot CRM Free is one of HubSpot's main software products, so it seems appropriate to include it here, to keep the page up-to-date on the company. The CRM was launched in 2014 and has been written about in multiple reliable sources, including Inc., HuffPost, Business Insider, Information Age, VentureBeat, TechRadar and Entrepreneur, among others. As disclosure, I do have a financial conflict of interest, as I am here on behalf of HubSpot through my work at Beutler Ink.

Due to my COI, I will not edit the article directly and hope that editors will review and make this update if it looks ok. Let me know if there are any questions or feedback. Thanks in advance! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:51, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

 Declined The request was declined in the other instance. Please see that page for more information. Comparison of Mobile CRM systems  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ  07:17, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Spintendo, I'm afraid I don't understand this decline. This is an addition to the corporate page to note their major product offering. It's quite different than the requests to add to the Comparison of CRM page. Can you explain a bit more why this addition isn't appropriate? It's well-sourced, and clearly relevant to the HubSpot article. Thanks in advance. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:10, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Keithbob: I'm pinging you to see if you'd be able to provide a second opinion on this edit request. It was declined by Spintendo but I'm a bit confused by the decline, so I'm hoping you can take a look, too, as you've made a series of constructive edits to this page previously.

If possible, I'd also be appreciative of your input on Comparison of CRM systems and Comparison of Mobile CRM systems. Spintendo declined those requests on the ground that the HubSpot CRM Free technology itself does not have a Misplaced Pages page. My thought is that HubSpot itself is notable and this is its major product, so this seems like a situation where it's hard to separate out the tech from the company for notability. What do you think? Thanks in advance! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 19:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

It is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected article at A. (edit · history · last · links · protection log) This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

Given that the reason for this decline seems to be a confusion between this request and my others at the CRM comparison pages, I am re-opening this request for editors to look at again. Please note: I am requesting this addition here on the HubSpot page, since HubSpot's product HubSpot CRM Free is not currently mentioned here. Thanks in advance, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 22:10, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

==HubSpot CRM Free==

 Declined As it stands, all the CRM products on that list have their own seperate articles except for one: Pipedrive. Determining whether or not HUBSpot meets the same threshhold as Pipedrive does, is a matter for further discussion. Other editors are requested to add to it.  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ  22:28, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

@Spintendo: I'm sorry but I think you're still missing that this is the HubSpot Misplaced Pages article and I'm seeking to add a mention of their own product to their own page. Can you please take another look? As far as I'm aware, there's no requirement for a product to have its own page before it can be mentioned in the article of the company that makes it. For the Comparison of CRM pages, I've started a discussion at WikiProject Software and will hold on seeking more input on those requests til editors have had a chance to weigh in. Thanks! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 03:24, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Spintendo seems to be confused. I don't see what the objection could be to adding information about a prominent product to the company's page. I have added a simplified version of the proposal to the article. ~Kvng (talk) 15:14, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with User:Kvng, I don't see any grounds for a blanket refusal to add this content. Assuming the reliable secondary sources have relevant info I don't see any reason for it to be blocked. User:Spintendo can you please cite a policy or guideline that supports your position?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Realized I hadn't circled back here to 1. say thanks so much to Kvng for reviewing the request and updating the article, 2. also say thanks to both Kvng and Keithbob for taking a look into this and confirming I wasn't losing my mind! Thanks again! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 16:57, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• Former good article nominees
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class company articles
• Low-importance company articles
• WikiProject Companies articles
• C-Class Marketing & Advertising articles
• Low-importance Marketing & Advertising articles
• WikiProject Marketing & Advertising articles
• C-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• C-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• C-Class Boston articles
• Low-importance Boston articles
• WikiProject Boston articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• Articles with connected contributors
• Talk pages of subject pages with paid contributions
• Misplaced Pages semi-protected edit requests