Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Delrina/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article review
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Marskell 15:49, 26 October 2009 [1].

Delrina edit

Review commentary edit

Toolbox
Notified: User:Captmondo (major contributor and nominator), Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing

This is a 2005 promotion.

Concerns are:

  • 1a Prose is not always clear.

Example: "Despite the seeming threat posed by Microsoft in the online communications and fax markets back in 1995, the company has not made significant improvements to its communications software; in Windows 95 the fax software was dropped, and it still licenses HyperTerminal from Hilgraeve. However, Microsoft's Internet Explorer would become the dominant Web browser in the years after Cyberjack was released."

  • 1b, Comprehensiveness.

Does not put the company nor the products in wider context. There are no insights into the company, the product or the rising sophistication of the technological climate. Also neglected is any comprehensive explanation of the underlying technology. No outside views of the products and company are provided.

  • 1c. Well-researched

The article was poorly cited to begin with, with an absence of reliable sources. Example:

The section on the court case Berkeley Systems Inc. v. Delrina is uncited
Many sources are to corporate websites and are not neutral
There are now many dead and irrelevant links.
  • 1d Neutrality.

The article seems to promote the product rather than give an objective view.

"Despite the publicity generated by the case, Delrina lost hundreds of thousands of dollars over the affair. The decision itself has been interpreted by some as an erosion of First Amendment rights over the increasing protection provided to copyright holders." (unsourced)
"The most notable multimedia software produced by Delrina was Echo Lake, an early form of scrapbook software that came out in February 1995. During development it was touted internally as a "cross [of] Quark Xpress and Myst"[5]. It featured an immersive 3D environment where a user could go to a virtual desktop in a virtual office and assemble video and audio clips along with images, and then send them as either a virtual book other users of the program could access, or to print. It was a highly innovative product for its time, and ultimately was hampered by the inability of many users to easily input their own multimedia content into a computer from that period." (unsourced) —Mattisse (Talk) 13:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Images (including company logo) need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 17:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images The fair use rationale for File:Delrina-logo.png: "Lo-res image" should be expanded. File:PerFormDesignerUI.gif, File:Delrina-OpusNBill-BrainSaver.jpg, File:EchoLake desktop.jpg, File:DelrinaCommSuite95-BoxShot.jpg need fair use rationales. DrKiernan (talk) 09:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the original writer of much of this article I understand the majority of the points that you make. Since the article was originally cited Wikipedia has grown and more rules governing citations and the use of images have been added.
<rant>The criteria for reaching Featured Article status has, in my opinion, become high enough so that it is no longer worth my time jumping through the various flaming hoops set in one's way, and of late I have opted instead to work on lifting material up from "Stub" status to at least "Start". I also resent having a sudden two-week deadline to "improve" an article without any prior warning.</rant>
A question: many of the online sources for this are no more -- if I decide to do so, can I link to the relevant pages from the Wayback machine (if they have in fact been archived there)?
On the topic of neutrality, I think there needs to be some "give" here, if only because the primary sources for an article of this nature would be company issued materials, product reviews, and occasional mentions in the press, none of which are guaranteed to be neutral. Could you please provide a reference to a Featured Article of another company from which I can draw a useful comparison?
I am deciding as to whether or not it is worth my (or anyone else's) while to further improve this article -- I would appreciate a considered response to my points above. Captmondo (talk) 14:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anybody there? There's little point to me even starting to update the article to the current standards if I don't at least have the Wayback machine question answered.
Is there another forum that some of the other points should be addressed in?
I would like to help, but I think some of the criteria listed as issues listed above may be unrealistic. If for example all corporate info is considered biased (ditto reporting on those firms), that would seem to nix the idea of any article on any other firm being a possible Featured Candidate, which can't be the right way to go about this.
Appreciate any comments. Captmondo (talk) 11:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I don't know anything about the Wayback machine. Primary sources are ok for "facts" about the product, but my understanding is that the article should include third-party reviews, analysis of the company/product's place in the history of computer software etc., or else the article is merely a promo for the company. Show some way that the topic is important and relevant. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 12:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Business for an appropriate forum for the other points. Also, I suggest adding this article to Wikipedia:WikiProject Business #Article alerts.
  • The Wayback Machine is OK for sources, though it's better to use the original source if available. Please see Wikipedia:Using the Wayback Machine for more on this.
  • Press releases are iffy sources. They are OK if they are used only as sources for claims about the company itself (not about other topics, such as the competition), if they are not unduly promotional, if they are directly on topic, if there's no reasonable doubt on them, and if the article is not primarily based on them. Please see WP:SELFPUB for the current policy on this.
Eubulides (talk) 17:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, this gives me something to work with. Will see what I can do. Captmondo (talk) 19:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no 2+2-week deadline. That basically only applies if there is no work. If there is consistent work it can last even three months or more. YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 02:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the web archive is acceptable YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 02:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, reliable sources, neutrality, comprehensiveness, prose, alt text. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 02:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, per FA criteria concerns, 1c, among others. Cirt (talk) 11:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per lack of citations throughout. As improvements are made and it gets closer to FA status, I can offer a more detailed review. JKBrooks85 (talk) 12:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold. The article seems to be progressing, and I'll reserve judgment until Captmondo says he's done. JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per nom and per above concerns. The article is not being actively worked on. User:Captmondo who said above that he would address concerns has not edited the article since February. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold as article is being worked on and is improving. —Mattisse (Talk) 12:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see the voting has already begun so this may be too late, but I have addressed in part the supposed "lack of references" problem, at least when it comes to the court case section. I have found numerous citations to back up the original assertions, which I may mine later for further depth. The old citations that had become dead links are now fixed with WaybackMachine references, though I have discovered that they need to be linked back to the section in the article that uses them as a citation.

This article *is* being worked on, albeit slowly, so I would ask for people to forebear delisting it. Captmondo (talk) 02:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's good to hear. The directors will give you time, so no need to worry. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks for working on it. Can you also please fix the alt text while you're at it? Click on the "alt text" in the toolbox at the upper right of this review page. Eubulides (talk) 15:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's on my list for tonight then. That and providing justifications for use of the images that was previously mentioned. Captmondo (talk) 16:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use rationale added for all images used in the article, along with descriptive alt text. Captmondo (talk) 01:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That alt text is good; a couple of further suggestions. For the logo, could you please say what the logo looks like (e.g., 'in black small caps letters, with the final "A" extended to the upper right by a large blue triangle pattern', or perhaps you can do better). And "Echo Lake software screen displaying" should be removed, since you can't tell that just from the image. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 20:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good points. Have amended the alt text for both images, and have added alt text for another image added to the article. Have also added references where requested in the "Forms products" section, expanding the section somewhat and trying to tie in where the firm's products stood in terms of its contemporaneous competitors.
Looks good. Thanks again. Eubulides (talk) 12:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A question: I'd like to dispute the need for a citation for the following phrase: "With the release of Windows 95 earlier that year, Delrina was now competing directly against Microsoft" as it seems wholly self-explanitory. Maybe a rewording is intended instead, but if so, I'm hard-pressed to know how to clarify the point further. Captmondo (talk) 02:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update: many former "footnotes" (which was the reference preference on WP at the time) have been converted to inline references. Contrary to Matisse's initial claim that the article was "poorly cited", it would be more accurate to say that it was "differently referenced", and in accordance with the WP referencing style of the time. Have also managed to track down many contemporaneous articles and other third-party references to subjects which were not previously cited. In several cases (notably in the court case section) the subject matter has also been expanded, all images now have fair-use rationale attached to them, and alt text added. Still don't consider myself to be be done with this as yet, but I would welcome any further suggestions on what still needs to be done.
So help me, I am beginning to enjoy jumping through the "flaming hoops". ;-) Captmondo (talk) 02:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Glad to hear that you're taking a stab at fixing it. To help you along, here are a few comments:
  • Please standardize the format of the citations. You've got a numbered list, then a bulleted list with a different font style. In addition, the citations vary in structure. Some have publishers first, some have Web addresses first, and some have magazine titles first. It looks like there's a pattern, but it's difficult for me to parse out. There are citation templates out there that do a decent job, but if you don't want to use those (I personally hate them), check out a featured article like Rampart Dam to see how citations can be done at FA quality without them.
  • There's some odd brackets on citations 4, 7, 9, and 31. Not sure if there's supposed to be a Web link with them or not.
  • There's a scattering of citation needed tags throughout, and someone's questioned the validity of one of the sources.
  • I'd suggest somehow merging the annual revenues section into the main body of the article or removing it entirely. It's a nice way of showing the company's growth, but I'm concerned that there aren't values for the entire life of the company. Without knowing those other values, I can't judge the figures provided.
  • The second paragraph of the lead is a bit brief. Try mentioning some of the portions of the company that were sold off and to whom they were sold. I don't suggest merging the two paragraphs, since that would leave you with a one-paragraph lead, which is frowned upon.
  • In the "Beginnings" section, "this idea" is unclear. To what does it refer?
  • In the beginnings section, it's said that the headquarters were in Toronto "for much of its existence". Did the headquarters move? If so, when and to where?
  • How many employees did the company have at various stages of its development? How were they distributed among the branch offices?
  • In the beginnings section, what is "its market"?
  • In the Echo Lake section, citation No. 29 concerns me. Business Wire is used for press releases, so I don't think it's the best thing for asserting that Echo Lake was the "most notable" software program produced by the company.
  • The above items are fairly minor compared to what I believe is a fundamental flaw in the article: its focus on the software programs produced by the company rather than the company itself. There's no information about the company's structure, how it operated, how many employees it had (except for the infobox), its impact, or its history. Compare this article to Microsoft, another computer company-related FA. Yes, there are a hell of a lot more sources that mention Microsoft than Delrina. It won't be easy to fix, but I think this article's focus needs to be completely shifted from the company's software to the company itself. I don't think anything (well, at least not much) needs to be deleted about the programs, but they need to be viewed through the context of the company's history, not as separate programs. Talk about the development of the programs and how each stage of the process changed the company. How did the success (or failure) of each program cause the company to grow (or shrink)? Did the company's management change? But that's just a pointer; the structure of the article will be determined by your writing style, of course.
  • Because so much work is needed on the article, I'm not going to go much deeper than I already have. If you manage to turn the article around, I'll be more than happy to submit more items to work on.
  • You've picked a tough article to save, but if I can offer any additional comments, don't hesitate to ask. Good luck! JKBrooks85 (talk) 05:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These are all good points, and I will attempt to address them in coming days. The trickiest (as you rightly pointed out) will be providing more info on the internal workings of the company, and how it evolved/developed. Will see what can be done but that one may prove to be insurmountable. Will see what can be done though! Captmondo (talk) 14:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A question re: "Unreliable Source" reference. As I look more closely at the suggested guidelines on Wikipedia:Reliable sources, it seems to me that the policy on Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves would apply. It may be self-published info, but it seems no less trustworthy on the subject matter it covers. As long as a citation makes reference to a statement rather than an opinion, then it could be used, correct? I understand that another third-party published source would be preferred, but in the absence of that this should not be excluded and is not strictly speaking "unreliable", right? Captmondo (talk) 20:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's the other way around. Opinions stated by an unpublished source are OK ... everyone has an opinion, right? But without editing and verification, stated facts are more iffy. Someone please let me know if that's not correct. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems to be progressing pretty well. Here's hoping it stays on the same track. I'd suggest getting someone to copy edit it when you think you've got enough content; the prose is pretty rough. I'm also a bit confused about the citation formats, and a look at the prose didn't help much. It looks like a reflist with a list of separate references tacked on. There's also a mix of citation templates and handwritten citations. These should be made consistent. But Captmondo continues to improve the article, and it might be saved yet. JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the vote of confidence -- am about to get my hands on a wealth of additional material so there should be significant expansion in the next week or so.
As for the citations, I *believe* I am using the correct citation style as required -- I think the differences that JKBrooks85 sees is as a result of deliberately different citations styles for print Magazine vs. Book vs. online vs. archived Wayback online references. Am using the prescribed Wikipedia:Citation_templates for each type of reference. If there's any that has slipped through the cracks, please let me know.
When I get a bit further with the additional source material that is coming, will ask a knowledgable colleague to do a copy-edit pass on the material.
I believe the article is well on its way towards retaining its Featured Article status, and ought to be a much-improved article as a result. Captmondo (talk) 13:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Much work has gone into it. As for the "raw reference" that one is a matter of debate, as neither I nor JKBrooks85 are certain of the interpretation of Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves would apply in this particular case. How should that be interpreted? Is opinion okay and facts asserted not, vice versa or neither? Cheers! Captmondo (talk) 13:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'During development it was touted internally as a "cross [of] Quark Xpress and Myst"' Is kevinsteele, the web host, one of the developers or a good source for what happened internally? (I am assuming he wrote it, as it is unsigned as far as I can tell unless I am missing it.) —Mattisse (Talk) 16:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On http://www.kevinsteele.com/mackerel_el_gallery.html he says "A team at Mackerel led by Karl Borst, Jeramy Cooke and myself..." so he was one of the developers of the program. Captmondo (talk) 17:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would have no problem as far as it being a self-published source if you had confirmation that Kevin Steele was one of the developers. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt I can supply any third-party reference to that, if that's what's needed. Otherwise, it safe to say from the content on that site that he was a developer, and had an intimate knowledge of the development of the product. Is that good enough? Captmondo (talk) 18:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I will stay out of that part, as I don't know what the conventions are regarding this type of article. I don't think the issue is important enough to hold up a "keep" of the article. However, the reference should be properly formatted. As far as the self-published part, self-published is ok for factual information or "point of view" material on the part of the self-publisher. So if Kevin Steele is a developer, then his point-of-view can be cited by his blog. That is my understanding of the sourcing issue. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. And I should be able to take care of re-formatting all of the Web URL citations to the current template referenced at WP:CT this evening. Captmondo (talk) 19:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All of the Web citations—save for the WayBack Machine URL references, which have their own specific format—have been converted/updated. The only one I can't seem to fix is the reference to a Robert X. Cringely article in a citation (currently citation #54, "Sorry, Andy, but our calculations demonstrate there is no Santa Claus"), which I think may be a problem with the underlying citation template. Could someone please check my work on that citation? Captmondo (talk) 15:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At this point the revisions I intended to make are largely "done", though there are a few minor points I'd like to flesh out. The bulk of the article has been re-written, focusing squarely on the company's history, with each point very thoroughly backed up from the numerous contemporaneous sources I have been able to track down. I believe that all/most of the previous criticisms of the article have been dealt with, and hope that any remaining criticisms are relatively minor. Captmondo (talk) 14:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing new coming, so I'm keeping this now. Thanks Capt. Marskell (talk) 15:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Delrina/archive1&oldid=1088720485"