Draft talk:ThreatLocker
Add topic | 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.
|
Draft feedback
[edit]Thank you User:MSK for your feedback on this draft. Regarding independent analysis, I was curious how Cyber Heroes, Florida Trends fell short. The article is independent of the subject and provides in-depth coverage of ThreatLocker. Several different pieces from CRN (magazine) are cited and the publication seems to be used extensively on Wikipedia. It has a very clear ethics policy.
WP:CORPDEPTH outlines coverage should have "overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation", and to me the following go beyond trivial coverage and include overview, description, and commentary:
- Exclusive: Cyber firm ThreatLocker to double staff and enhance product after $100M VC deal
- This one is from Orlando Business Journal and includes overview of company since launch and description of what the company does.
- ThreatLocker Driving ‘Reimagined’ Zero Trust, Consolidation For MSPs: Partners
- This article it goes into commentary and discussion as outlined by WP:CORPDEPTH
Other sources not in this draft that could be added if needed also include:
- Maitland cybersecurity firm ThreatLocker to use VC to continue rapid growth, Orlando Business Journal
- Inside ThreatLocker’s Rise from Startup to Global Cybersecurity Company, Irish Tech News
- ThreatLocker Is Spearheading Enterprise Cybersecurity Solutions, Orlando Magazine
Let me know, thanks! Stephanie BINK (talk) 22:03, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
- Florida Trends IMO doesn't meet WP:ORGIND, as is the CRN source. IMO (I can't access the OBJ sources so excluding those) a lot of these sources are just saying what ThreatLocker execs are saying in interviews without much independent analysis. msk 16:27, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
- Apologies for the long wait, was busy yesterday afternoon. Those sources do seem to meet CORPDEPTH though, so disregard the AfC comment I left. msk 16:29, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking another look and confirming CORDEPTH. Might you be willing to update your comment on the submission with this update? If you're not interested in re-reviewing or accepting the draft, do you recommend I go ahead and resubmit? Thanks! Stephanie BINK (talk) 17:23, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
- As a principle, most AfC reviewers don't offer re-reviews, so it's probably best to submit and wait for another review. msk 18:33, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking another look and confirming CORDEPTH. Might you be willing to update your comment on the submission with this update? If you're not interested in re-reviewing or accepting the draft, do you recommend I go ahead and resubmit? Thanks! Stephanie BINK (talk) 17:23, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
- Apologies for the long wait, was busy yesterday afternoon. Those sources do seem to meet CORPDEPTH though, so disregard the AfC comment I left. msk 16:29, 28 May 2026 (UTC)