This article 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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles 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.Computer scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Computer scienceTemplate:WikiProject Computer scienceComputer science articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Databases, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.DatabasesWikipedia:WikiProject DatabasesTemplate:WikiProject DatabasesDatabases articles
The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.
@DoubleGrazing: and @HighKing: the page has a tag at the top that says it "may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view." I'm hoping that you have some guidance on how to address the tag's feedback? DRonald0412 (talk) 19:47, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed the article and made some minor changes. I also checked all the sources. This seems pretty encyclopedic, so I removed the hatnote. I know there are two camps in an ongoing discussion about tagging articles where an editor properly disclosed a COI, but I think that just discourages disclosures. I've also got this on my watchlist. If you disagree, feel free to retag. TimTempleton(talk)(cont)21:32, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have no, and had no, issue with this; the COI tag was placed (not by me) back in March, and the disclosure was subsequently made a month later — all seems to have been done correctly, AFAICS. All I did was make a comment at AfC that I thought the article was good to go, and indeed soon after that it was accepted by another reviewer. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 04:29, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No problem with taking off the tag either, I don't have an opinion on that issue. On a different note, I think the "reception" section is either unnecessary or would benefit from more generalised comments including the inclusion in Gantner and Forrester reports. HighKing++ 11:23, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
