Talk:Tesla, Inc.: Difference between revisions
Latest comment: 13 August 2023 by Manos in topic Lack of References
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (21 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== Lack of References == | |||
# The report contains repeated information, such Elon Musk's bio, the place(s) that the offerings are promoted and marketed. | Many recent edits lack proper citations. To ensure the accuracy and authenticity of the information, please provide references by August 18, 2023. Without them, the content may be subject to removal. [[User:Manos|Manos]] ([[User talk:Manos|talk]]) 11:06, 13 August 2023 (BST) | ||
==General Feedback== | |||
{| class="wikitable sortable" | |||
|+Feedback | |||
!# | |||
!Feedback | |||
!Feedback author | |||
!Feedback response | |||
!Feedback response author | |||
|- | |||
|1 | |||
|The report contains repeated information, such as Elon Musk's bio, the place(s) that the offerings are promoted and marketed. | |||
|Anonymous 1 | |||
| The mentioned repeated information has been removed and/or updated, so I think this issue has been fixed now. | |||
|Manos | |||
|- | |||
|2 | |||
|The description of the target audience seems inaccurate. | |||
|Anonymous 1 | |||
|It’s unclear to me who exactly are the target audiences of Tesla’s offerings, so the target audience descriptions have been removed, so I think this issue is fixed now. | |||
|Manos | |||
|- | |||
|3 | |||
|The report is wordy. | |||
|Anonymous 1 | |||
|Many words have been removed now, so I think this issue has been fixed. | |||
|Manos | |||
|- | |||
|4 | |||
|The report is too dumb-downed. For example, no need to describe what a car is. | |||
|Anonymous 1 | |||
|The description of a car has been removed now, so I think this issue has been fixed. | |||
|Manos | |||
|- | |||
|5 | |||
|A suggestion is to remove some of the sub-headings. | |||
|Anonymous 1 | |||
|Some of the sub-headings have been removed now, so I think this issue has been fixed. | |||
|Manos | |||
|- | |||
|6 | |||
|One of the table includes one or more silly categories. For example, "is the car safe?" | |||
|Anonymous 1 | |||
|Two of the categories have been updated now, so I think this issue has been fixed. | |||
|Manos | |||
|- | |||
|7 | |||
|The report is different to other reports. | |||
|Anonymous 1 | |||
|Different can be good, so I think there is nothing to fix here. | |||
|Manos | |||
|- | |||
|8 | |||
|Check that the minimum investment amount is indeed £10. | |||
|Anonymous 1 | |||
|Checked now, and $10 is correct, so I think this issue has been fixed. | |||
|Manos | |||
|- | |||
|9 | |||
| The valuation of the investment is unclear and complex; make it clearer and simpler. See a high-quality research report for an example. | |||
|Anonymous 1 | |||
|Personally, I think the valuation is clear and simple, so I think unless more people provide the same feedback, then it's best to keep it how it is. Also, the layout is optimised for both mobile and desktop viewing, whereas many other reports are optimised for desktop viewing only. Note, a later version of the Stockhub platform will enable users to amend the underlying assumptions of the financial model, and I think that will help to make the valuation clearer and simpler. | |||
|Manos | |||
|- | |||
|10 | |||
|The report seems robotic. | |||
|Anonymous 1 | |||
|Given the above fixes, I think this issue has been fixed now. | |||
|Manos | |||
|- | |||
|11 | |||
|I'd rate the quality of the report 2 out of 10. | |||
|Anonymous 1 | |||
|Given the above fixes, I think this issue has been fixed now. | |||
|Manos | |||
|- | |||
|12 | |||
|Add to the report recent news. | |||
|Anonymous 1 | |||
|The latest significant update on the company is in relation to the company’s first quarter results, and the results have been included in the report now, so I think this issue has been fixed. | |||
|Manos | |||
|- | |||
|13 | |||
|Add to the report information about Tesla's quarterly earnings. | |||
|Anonymous 1 | |||
|Information about the earnings have been added now, so I think this issue has been fixed. | |||
|Manos | |||
|- | |||
| 14 | |||
|Change the format of the report to the following headings: summary, company background, strategy, recent trading, recent updates, etc. | |||
|Anonymous 1 | |||
|I think this issue has been fixed now. | |||
|Manos | |||
|- | |||
|15 | |||
|Change in the report the word "lifespan" to "time horizon". | |||
|Anonymous 1 | |||
|I think unless more people provide the same feedback, then it's best to keep the word how it is. | |||
|Manos | |||
|- | |||
|16 | |||
|The time horizon of 60 years questionable. | |||
|Anonymous 1 | |||
|An explanation about the reason behind using 60 years is provided in the report. Without knowing why the person thinks 60 years is questionable, it's almost impossible to know whether the issue is fixed or not. That said, a later version of the Stockhub platform will enable users to amend the underlying assumptions of the financial model. | |||
|Manos | |||
|- | |||
|17 | |||
|It was a good and comprehensive report. I found the detail of all the cars a bit long so I wonder if you can somehow shorten that part or maybe have it as an appendix. The overall company assessment and financials is the most relevant / interesting bit. Overall, the quality of the report is 9 (out of 10). | |||
|Anonymous 2 | |||
|It's unclear to me which cars details you're referring to. I think you're referring to the competition comparison bit? If so, that's now been moved to the appendix section of the report, so I think the issue is now fixed. | |||
|Manos | |||
|- | |||
|18 | |||
| The report looks good overall. I don’t like the colour coding on the tables, but I get that it is to indicate positive or the better option in that particular field. I like that you have listed out risks around the company. I would rate the overall quality of the report 6.5 (out of 10). Why? Because I just found it a little difficult to read given the amount of information (I think this is because I was using my mobile device and it’s smaller, so difficult on small screen) | |||
|Anonymous 4 | |||
|You don't like the colour coding on the tables. Is your suggestion to remove it? There's an underlying suggestion from your feedback that the report is too long, is that correct? Some of the information has now been moved to the appendix section of the report, so I think that issue is now fixed. | |||
|Manos | |||
|} | |||
Latest revision as of 11:07, 13 August 2023
Lack of ReferencesEdit
Many recent edits lack proper citations. To ensure the accuracy and authenticity of the information, please provide references by August 18, 2023. Without them, the content may be subject to removal. Manos (talk) 11:06, 13 August 2023 (BST)
General FeedbackEdit
| # | Feedback | Feedback author | Feedback response | Feedback response author |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | The report contains repeated information, such as Elon Musk's bio, the place(s) that the offerings are promoted and marketed. | Anonymous 1 | The mentioned repeated information has been removed and/or updated, so I think this issue has been fixed now. | Manos |
| 2 | The description of the target audience seems inaccurate. | Anonymous 1 | It’s unclear to me who exactly are the target audiences of Tesla’s offerings, so the target audience descriptions have been removed, so I think this issue is fixed now. | Manos |
| 3 | The report is wordy. | Anonymous 1 | Many words have been removed now, so I think this issue has been fixed. | Manos |
| 4 | The report is too dumb-downed. For example, no need to describe what a car is. | Anonymous 1 | The description of a car has been removed now, so I think this issue has been fixed. | Manos |
| 5 | A suggestion is to remove some of the sub-headings. | Anonymous 1 | Some of the sub-headings have been removed now, so I think this issue has been fixed. | Manos |
| 6 | One of the table includes one or more silly categories. For example, "is the car safe?" | Anonymous 1 | Two of the categories have been updated now, so I think this issue has been fixed. | Manos |
| 7 | The report is different to other reports. | Anonymous 1 | Different can be good, so I think there is nothing to fix here. | Manos |
| 8 | Check that the minimum investment amount is indeed £10. | Anonymous 1 | Checked now, and $10 is correct, so I think this issue has been fixed. | Manos |
| 9 | The valuation of the investment is unclear and complex; make it clearer and simpler. See a high-quality research report for an example. | Anonymous 1 | Personally, I think the valuation is clear and simple, so I think unless more people provide the same feedback, then it's best to keep it how it is. Also, the layout is optimised for both mobile and desktop viewing, whereas many other reports are optimised for desktop viewing only. Note, a later version of the Stockhub platform will enable users to amend the underlying assumptions of the financial model, and I think that will help to make the valuation clearer and simpler. | Manos |
| 10 | The report seems robotic. | Anonymous 1 | Given the above fixes, I think this issue has been fixed now. | Manos |
| 11 | I'd rate the quality of the report 2 out of 10. | Anonymous 1 | Given the above fixes, I think this issue has been fixed now. | Manos |
| 12 | Add to the report recent news. | Anonymous 1 | The latest significant update on the company is in relation to the company’s first quarter results, and the results have been included in the report now, so I think this issue has been fixed. | Manos |
| 13 | Add to the report information about Tesla's quarterly earnings. | Anonymous 1 | Information about the earnings have been added now, so I think this issue has been fixed. | Manos |
| 14 | Change the format of the report to the following headings: summary, company background, strategy, recent trading, recent updates, etc. | Anonymous 1 | I think this issue has been fixed now. | Manos |
| 15 | Change in the report the word "lifespan" to "time horizon". | Anonymous 1 | I think unless more people provide the same feedback, then it's best to keep the word how it is. | Manos |
| 16 | The time horizon of 60 years questionable. | Anonymous 1 | An explanation about the reason behind using 60 years is provided in the report. Without knowing why the person thinks 60 years is questionable, it's almost impossible to know whether the issue is fixed or not. That said, a later version of the Stockhub platform will enable users to amend the underlying assumptions of the financial model. | Manos |
| 17 | It was a good and comprehensive report. I found the detail of all the cars a bit long so I wonder if you can somehow shorten that part or maybe have it as an appendix. The overall company assessment and financials is the most relevant / interesting bit. Overall, the quality of the report is 9 (out of 10). | Anonymous 2 | It's unclear to me which cars details you're referring to. I think you're referring to the competition comparison bit? If so, that's now been moved to the appendix section of the report, so I think the issue is now fixed. | Manos |
| 18 | The report looks good overall. I don’t like the colour coding on the tables, but I get that it is to indicate positive or the better option in that particular field. I like that you have listed out risks around the company. I would rate the overall quality of the report 6.5 (out of 10). Why? Because I just found it a little difficult to read given the amount of information (I think this is because I was using my mobile device and it’s smaller, so difficult on small screen) | Anonymous 4 | You don't like the colour coding on the tables. Is your suggestion to remove it? There's an underlying suggestion from your feedback that the report is too long, is that correct? Some of the information has now been moved to the appendix section of the report, so I think that issue is now fixed. | Manos |