This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology 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.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
Does anyone feel the 'reads like an advert' tag is still required? For other tags, I removed the Cleanup tag because that looks OK to me. Are there some comments on further work it needs? RJFJR (talk) 20:55, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.
Although I am a technical writer at the company in question, I have updated the article to make it current and accurate. It was languishing in a stale state due to inactivity, probably because of the size of the company and the level of specialization of the software. Several of the links for references were 404, and the latest functionality of the Objectivity/DB software was not included.
The article has two issues listed at the top that were added in 2010. I believe those issues were addressed quite some time back, as indicated by the comment above this one. I am hoping for some confirmation that the current article is ready to have the issues removed. Or, if changes to the article are needed first, that would be welcomed as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.207.23.2 (talk) 15:51, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Jjrenzel: Thank you for disclosing your affiliation and asking for feedback. I assume you the same person as user Jjrenzel?
I don't think those issues are addressed, and your edit makes it slightly worse. It's very easy to find problems with this article, main problems being the overuse of adjectives (WP:PEACOCK), vague claims (WP:WEASEL), stating subjective opinions as facts (WP:POV) and general tone that tries to sell the product, rather than describe it neutrally (WP:TONE).
For example, blurbs like "data intensive or real-time applications that manipulate highly complex, inter-related data" belong to marketing brochures, but not Wikipedia.
Claims like "Eliminating the relational Join operations inherent in a relational database gives Objectivity/DB a marked performance advantage, in orders of magnitude." are inherently subjective and debatable -- I believe removing joins from the database simply pushes them to the application, which is a net loss in performance and increase in complexity. It's best to avoid such statements in the first place and especially if you are affiliated with the product. If they are to be described, they need to come from a published reliable source, preferably independent of the subject, and the claims need to be attributed to the source (WP:YESPOV).
And then there are dishonest claims like "Many RDBMSs manifest a view of the results before returning any of them", if it's implying that no results are returned until the whole query completes?
My advice, if you want to arrive at a neutral article without these tags, stubify it: ruthlessly delete everything that's subjective or does not come from an independent secondary source. This may sound counterintuitive to building a good article, but we're after quality not quantity. -- intgr[talk]21:36, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm impressed with the speed of response! Wikpedia runs like a well-oiled machine.
I'm not comfortable with deleting a lot of original material that I didn't author, but I would like to try to address your feedback and make appropriate changes where I can. I will remove some of the items you have identified as having a marketing orientation. I can add several references that talk about how in object databases, objects can store references to other objects, which is how joins are avoided. Thank you for taking the time to provide the feedback -- Jjrenzel (talk) 18:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but things often don't work this fast, I just happened to have this article on my watchlist and take an interest in getting rid of advert-ish articles.
Don't be afraid to edit things, see WP:BOLD. Old content can always be seen/restored from the article history if people disagree with you. And you have my support to stubify. -- intgr[talk]19:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
