OK so far but …
The new draft is OK so far but:
- there are still absolutely no reliable sources that are independent of the subject
- the list of companies who have used WebDNA is useless - I want links to websites which use WedDNA
- I see the phrase RAM-based on this page for example. I would still like a few words of explanation.
— RHaworth 18:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Example list of a few hundred (out of thousands) live WebDNA sites for the wikipedia's notability (among other new article contents): proper version with links and unlinked (but possibly more up-to-date) version. Donovanbrooke (talk) 18:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Donovan. I have added 3 refs to your article that will satisfy WP:N. As a new good-faith contributor you should take a look at WP:5 in particular WP:RS and WP:NPOV. You should understand that articles in Wikipedia can only refer, what other third-party independent sources have said about the subject. The main problem with our article is that you rely extensively on primary sources (except perhaps ), that are not independent of the subject. The references that I included are WP:RS and they demonstrate independent coverage. This takes your article out of life support but I wont recommned you moving it back into article space yet. There are too many spammy words: mature searching and editing capabilities, robust, fast, quickly, fast-paced growth, powerful tags, etc. The tone should be encyclopedic, factual, and above all, neutral, or it will get a rough treatment by other Wikipedia editors. It will give you far less frustrations to fix the issues yourself. Thanks for being persistent with article improvement even after the initial rough treatment. RHaworth is notorious for biting new-comers. Power.corrupts (talk) 08:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Reply in preparation. Actually Power.corrupts, I would say I had been more gentle than usual with Donovan. — RHaworth 10:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Please note: a) we use
<to make an HTML comment visible and b) if "it's" is short for "it is", then it takes an apostrophe otherwise it does not (I assume the same applies in good American as it does in British).
- Please note: a) we use
- You should thank Power.corrupts most sincerely for adding the references that you could and should have found. I will give you a while to follow Power.corrupts' advice re weasel words but I agree it's (!) nearly ready. — RHaworth 12:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, thanks to Power.corrupts for the edits/suggestions! (I bow down to your google fu!) ;-) I will get a chance to work on this in the next day or so. Donovanbrooke (talk) 14:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
After reading all the "WP:" articles, eliminating spammy words/sentences, adding pertinant citations, and tripple checking accuracy and grammar, I believe I am ready to move to the article name space. Donovanbrooke (talk) 21:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)