![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The overuse of primary sources here makes me question if this is even notable? The content, tone and length aren't acceptable. Can we cut it down and rewrite it based on secondary sources or is this a WP:TNT? Widefox; talk 22:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Being a contributor to this page it is difficult to understand your criticism. Mainly created by community members this page is intended to give information on the Polkadot project and the ecosystem to come in the future. The Web 3 Foundation is a nonprofit as the driving power behind this. Being actively developed ATM Polkadot is one of the most interesting emerging technologies in the crypto world. I would love to help making this page better. Therefore it would be important to know what in your opinion can be improved on. MasterOfDesaster99 ( talk) 19:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
The notability of a project is a highly subjective matter though. Wikipedia is the means to give independent information about relevant topics. I want to contribute and want to make this page better and would highly appreciate your help in doing so. MasterOfDesaster99 ( talk) 20:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
This article had two RSes, one of which was a single mention in Bloomberg and the other was an article on the ICO in TechCrunch.
I just cut a large slab of technical detail that was completely primary sourced. It shouldn't be restored without RSes.
As noted above, this article still needs RSes. Are there any? - David Gerard ( talk) 00:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
I tried to bring back some of the details that had been lost in previous versions, while restructuring a bit the lead section, removing some of the promotional tone in sentences, and bringing a couple more sources from non-crypto medias. There is definitely a lot more work to be done on this page - given that it is one of the largest cryptocurrencies, its notability deserves it a bit of love and attention 7804j ( talk) 08:26, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 16:52, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The overuse of primary sources here makes me question if this is even notable? The content, tone and length aren't acceptable. Can we cut it down and rewrite it based on secondary sources or is this a WP:TNT? Widefox; talk 22:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Being a contributor to this page it is difficult to understand your criticism. Mainly created by community members this page is intended to give information on the Polkadot project and the ecosystem to come in the future. The Web 3 Foundation is a nonprofit as the driving power behind this. Being actively developed ATM Polkadot is one of the most interesting emerging technologies in the crypto world. I would love to help making this page better. Therefore it would be important to know what in your opinion can be improved on. MasterOfDesaster99 ( talk) 19:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
The notability of a project is a highly subjective matter though. Wikipedia is the means to give independent information about relevant topics. I want to contribute and want to make this page better and would highly appreciate your help in doing so. MasterOfDesaster99 ( talk) 20:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
This article had two RSes, one of which was a single mention in Bloomberg and the other was an article on the ICO in TechCrunch.
I just cut a large slab of technical detail that was completely primary sourced. It shouldn't be restored without RSes.
As noted above, this article still needs RSes. Are there any? - David Gerard ( talk) 00:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
I tried to bring back some of the details that had been lost in previous versions, while restructuring a bit the lead section, removing some of the promotional tone in sentences, and bringing a couple more sources from non-crypto medias. There is definitely a lot more work to be done on this page - given that it is one of the largest cryptocurrencies, its notability deserves it a bit of love and attention 7804j ( talk) 08:26, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 16:52, 18 May 2022 (UTC)