This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I've updated the page, taking out things like that sound like advertising, like: "the leading platform". Also added a verifiable reference from Gartner and made some updates to reflect the latest state of the product line.
(2006-08-24) The current copy'n'paste from their website is not encyclopedia standard. Gronky 23:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to know what tools Enterprise Edition includes, how are they modified, why does it only run with Redhat, etc.
There is nothing qualifying the fact that it is "the leading software", nor is it easy to see what Enterprise edition does. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.59.182.203 ( talk) 11:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC).
I've taken out more market-y language and removed the section on community edition - there isn't really such a thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.167.206.210 ( talk) 00:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I think the article has been cleaned up enough. Certainly it is positive, and if people know of issues then please add them. But there are no longer unjustifiable statements, IMHO. Tuntable ( talk) 11:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Essentially what is needed is to go through your press coverage report, or do a Google News search. Identify articles that are independently written, write the information that is in the press article neutrally and source it. Keep in mind Wikipedia has higher standards of neutrality than the press, so we may not write it the same way just because it's sourced. Put together a draft of one section you would like to improve and ask an impartial editor to consider it using Request Edit. Let me know if you have questions or need help. CorporateM ( Talk) 16:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I've updated the page, taking out things like that sound like advertising, like: "the leading platform". Also added a verifiable reference from Gartner and made some updates to reflect the latest state of the product line.
(2006-08-24) The current copy'n'paste from their website is not encyclopedia standard. Gronky 23:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to know what tools Enterprise Edition includes, how are they modified, why does it only run with Redhat, etc.
There is nothing qualifying the fact that it is "the leading software", nor is it easy to see what Enterprise edition does. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.59.182.203 ( talk) 11:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC).
I've taken out more market-y language and removed the section on community edition - there isn't really such a thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.167.206.210 ( talk) 00:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I think the article has been cleaned up enough. Certainly it is positive, and if people know of issues then please add them. But there are no longer unjustifiable statements, IMHO. Tuntable ( talk) 11:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Essentially what is needed is to go through your press coverage report, or do a Google News search. Identify articles that are independently written, write the information that is in the press article neutrally and source it. Keep in mind Wikipedia has higher standards of neutrality than the press, so we may not write it the same way just because it's sourced. Put together a draft of one section you would like to improve and ask an impartial editor to consider it using Request Edit. Let me know if you have questions or need help. CorporateM ( Talk) 16:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)