Talk:JMP (statistical software)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Retrolord (talk · contribs) 23:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! This ones been sitting on the waiting list for a while, so I thought i'd review it. Thanks! ★★Retro Lord ★★ 23:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason the article refers to Six Sigma, instead of productivity support or something similar? ★★Retro Lord ★★ 07:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Six Sigma is something pretty specific, but I can take it out if you feel strongly. CorporateM (Talk) 14:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"It has local, regional, international and special-interest users groups" This sentence doesn't really seem neccessary. Is it just pointing out that the software is used by people internationally aswell as locally? If so, could we remove it? ★★Retro Lord ★★ 07:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done It was used to point out the existence of users groups generally and the structure/categories of users groups, but maybe it's pretty obvious that a significant software company would have them. CorporateM (Talk) 14:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

" in JMP 4" For consistency, could we make this in JMP version 4, as it is called in other parts of the article? ★★Retro Lord ★★ 04:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done CorporateM (Talk) 13:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any notable reviews/contreversies or anything like that related to the product? And I added one more thing to the table. ★★Retro Lord ★★ 07:51, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I first wrote this I was thinking there weren't enough authoritative, professional product reviews, but now that I take a second look at it, I think there are.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] I'm not aware of any controversies - it's a pretty geeky/niche topic. The software is well-liked, but not without criticisms. CorporateM (Talk) 13:14, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	"JMP consists of JMP, JMP Pro and two products that combine SAS and JMP software, JMP Clinical and JMP Genomics" This sentence is a bit confusing, i'm reading it as "JMP consists of JMP and two products that include JMP software" Could you rewrite it to make this clearer? Done CorporateM (Talk) 14:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] " wizard-driven and runs in memory" What does this mean? I thought all programs ran in memory, and what do you mean by "wizard driven"? Done CorporateM (Talk) 14:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] " interface for accessing R" What is the R this is refferring to? Done CorporateM (Talk) 12:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	"160,000 lines of C code" I know its a neat little detail, but unfortunately I dont think its all the neccessary to the article, could we remove it? Done CorporateM (Talk) 14:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	The first two images in the article have tags that ask for lower resolution images to comply with the fair-use policy. Is this possible? Done CorporateM (Talk) 14:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] Oops, now it's done. CorporateM (Talk) 17:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.