` :You have been an editor for two days, and you have only edited articles that are related to one topic, namely the promotion of an individual, a company, and its products. Fortunately, you have a lot more skill than previous SPA accounts, and you have cleaned up the article well—good. However, in the future please do not quote extracts to experienced editors (the tag was not ``drive-by``; it was thoroughly deserved). Instead, just ask what needs to be improved in order for the tag to be removed. In general, it is highly inappropriate for a brand new SPA to remove a tag: you should ask on the talk page and propose that it be removed. You might then consider removing such a tag after waiting for at least 24 hours. However, in this case it seems ok. :There are a couple of trivial issues (section is ``References``—see WP:LAYOUT). These don't matter and will be fixed in due course. :Many of the references (here and particularly at Joe Kiani) appear to be slight variations of the same thing. Something more substantial would be desirable, or reduce the number of apparent refs if they are simply different spiels resulting from a press release. :I doubt if ``Halo Index`` (referenced to a speech by the CEO[?]) warrants mention here—it certainly does not warrant a section. On the company website, such a section and link would be great, but Wikipedia articles wait until something significant has occurred before recording it, and something which ``may help clinicians`` is not warranted here. Some of the other product descriptions are probably also overly detailed for an encyclopedic article given what a quick look suggests are flimsy references (just a press release?). Imagine what Procter & Gamble would look like if its products received the treatment in this article. :Despite my critique, the recent edits have greatly improved the articles.   `