![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
I have edited the article, removed the advert-like parts. So please remove speedy deletion tag on the page. As the author of the page I cannot. Bekiroflaz ( talk) 17:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
The article is still unbalanced and does not read like an encyclopedia at all. Sorry, but unless the article is re-written like a proper article I will still leave it to an Administrator to decide. Thanks. Jack ( talk) 20:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I have made a few edits, but could not find sources for the information on the article. Isn't it enough to not to be deleted? Bekiroflaz ( talk) 17:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
All information on Wikipedia needs to be well referenced, or it cannot be used. I will give you time, BUT the article still reads like advertising and needs to be improved. Jack ( talk) 09:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
The 'Foundation' section, while referenced, reads like and advert or a story, rather than an encyclopedic entry, the Features section is not balanced and there is no mention of any negative points. But you have improved the introduction to the article to an acceptable standard Jack ( talk) 13:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I am not alleging that it needs to say what it cannot do, but it does read like an advert (it does nothing but promote Fizy and that IS an advert). And Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is not meant to read like the "our story" section of a corporate website. I am not saying that the article needs to be hypercritical, just balanced and encyclopedic. Jack ( talk) 12:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I now agree that, following heavy editing, the article is no longer advertisement-like. I'll leave you to fix the other issues. Good luck! Jack ( talk) 13:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
I have edited the article, removed the advert-like parts. So please remove speedy deletion tag on the page. As the author of the page I cannot. Bekiroflaz ( talk) 17:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
The article is still unbalanced and does not read like an encyclopedia at all. Sorry, but unless the article is re-written like a proper article I will still leave it to an Administrator to decide. Thanks. Jack ( talk) 20:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I have made a few edits, but could not find sources for the information on the article. Isn't it enough to not to be deleted? Bekiroflaz ( talk) 17:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
All information on Wikipedia needs to be well referenced, or it cannot be used. I will give you time, BUT the article still reads like advertising and needs to be improved. Jack ( talk) 09:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
The 'Foundation' section, while referenced, reads like and advert or a story, rather than an encyclopedic entry, the Features section is not balanced and there is no mention of any negative points. But you have improved the introduction to the article to an acceptable standard Jack ( talk) 13:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I am not alleging that it needs to say what it cannot do, but it does read like an advert (it does nothing but promote Fizy and that IS an advert). And Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is not meant to read like the "our story" section of a corporate website. I am not saying that the article needs to be hypercritical, just balanced and encyclopedic. Jack ( talk) 12:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I now agree that, following heavy editing, the article is no longer advertisement-like. I'll leave you to fix the other issues. Good luck! Jack ( talk) 13:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)