Jump to content

User talk:Ev2geny/sandbox

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconArticles for creation NA‑class
WikiProject iconThis page was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
NAThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
WikiProject iconSoftware: Computing NA‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles
NAThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by WikiProject Computing.
Note icon
An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this page.


Discussion of article issues

[edit]

This article appears to be written like an advertisement

[edit]

Is it possible to specify exactly which part of the article appears to be written like an advertisement? Or is it an article as a whole?Ev2geny (talk) 18:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is the article as a whole in my view. It is likely due to the fact that it is mostly based on primary sources and is full of peacock and weasel words giving undue weight to the positive aspects of the project. I think that resolving the sourcing issues mentioned below will mostly solve this issue as well. — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 15:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations

[edit]

I do not quite understand this issue. This article has 24 + 2(as some of the are referred to twice)=26 in-line citations. Which in my view quite a big amount for article of such size. Comparable Microsoft Project has only 7 in-line citations. So which part of an article require more in-line citations? Ev2geny (talk) 18:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • The sources used for this article are:
  • "Spider Project Team". PRIMARY
Agree. This reference is removedEv2geny (talk) 20:55, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Reverence is removed Ev2geny (talk) 21:08, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. This reference is removed Ev2geny (talk) 21:08, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. This reference is removed Ev2geny (talk) 20:55, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't quite agree. This reference is put here just to confirm, the statement that "Spider Project Team is a PMI Registered Education Provider". For this I consider a reference to PMI web site to be a reliable reference Ev2geny (talk) 20:55, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't quite agree..This is not an Archibald's product. This is Liberzon's product. Liberzon lives in Russia, Archibald lives in the US. Russell D. Archibald is one of the PMI founders and is such a respected member of the Project Management community that I would consider this to be a disrespect to this gentlemen to classify his book as not being a reliable an independent source.Ev2geny (talk) 20:55, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't quite agree.. This reference to PMI site is put here to confirm the statement, that "Members of Spider Project team have spoken at several PMI and IPMA Congresses and Conferences". For this purposes I consider it to be a reliable source.
Don't quite agree.. This reference to PMI site is put here to confirm the statement, that "Members of Spider Project team have spoken at several PMI and IPMA Congresses and Conferences". For this purposes I consider it to be a reliable source.
Don't quite agree.. This reference to PMI site is put here to confirm the statement, that "Members of Spider Project team have spoken at several PMI and IPMA Congresses and Conferences". For this purposes I consider it to be a reliable source.
Don't quite agree..This is not an Archibald's product. This is Liberzon's product. Liberzon lives in Russia, Archibald lives in the US. Russell D. Archibald is one of the PMI founders and is such a respected member of the Project Management community that I would consider this to be a disrespect to this gentlemen to classify his book as not being a reliable an independent source.Ev2geny (talk) 20:55, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Agree. This reference is removed Ev2geny (talk) 21:08, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. This reference is removed. Ev2geny (talk) 23:18, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Partially agree. This document is referenced to provide confirmation, that Spider Project was used in Romtelecom to manage big portfolio. As the article is written by some authors also from Romtelecom, I consider this reference to be reliable for this purposes. However I could not find this document on the independent web site, therefore I have updated statement in the article to reflect this:
"Spider Project site has a document, reportedly published together with Romtelecom, Romania at PMICOS conference, where a detailed report is provided on usage of Spider Project for managing of a portfolio of 1,600 projects, containing up to 170,000 activities"
This is a primary source but it confirms non-controversial point (amount of releases) published. In such a way in my view it confirms to Wikipedia's policy on the usage of primary sources: A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge Ev2geny (talk) 22:42, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is a primary source but it confirms non-controversial point (different versions). In such a way in my view it confirms to Wikipedia's policy on the usage of primary sources: A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge Ev2geny (talk) 23:18, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Don't quite agree As mentioned above, this is not Archibald's product.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ev2geny/sandbox&oldid=944875798"