User talk:MadeYourReadThis
09:27:58, 9 March 2018 review of submission by Justin Wabscott
Dear MadeYourReadThis, your objection to the article is exactly the same as PrimeFac, the previous reviewer. But since Primefac's objection that the page and its citations did not indicate 'notability' but merely 'how-tos' I have added *three* citations from highly prominent and reputable sources, indicating precisely the 'notability' of Studio 3T. Specifically footnote #3, in an independent article from Andrew Oliver at InfoWorld, the existence of the Studio 3T IDE is called out as *proving* the mainstream credentials of MongoDB, and that the NoSQL database platform has truly grown up. In the database world this is very big news. Similarly the Microsoft docs citation indicate the notability of the Studio IDE by referencing its indispensability in Cosmos DB API access from Mongo. Again, this is very notable news in the big data space, when Mongo and Microsoft are seen to be coming together. Is there any way that the page could be reviewed by someone with expertise in the world of databases both RDBMS and NoSQL? It lets Wikipedia's reputation down to carry pages on IntelliJ and Eclipse Java IDE's, as well as many insignificant ones such as MyEclipse and even Understand Software, which a) has not been updated in 3 years and b) also references Softpedia as a citation. That IDE however only has 8 citations. Studio 3T has 23. I would very much like to ask for a second opinion in this case.
Justin Wabscott (talk) 09:27, 9 March 2018 (UTC)