Talk:CollabNet

Updated the page

I've updated the page, taking out things like that sound like advertising, like: "the leading platform". Also added a verifiable reference from Gartner and made some updates to reflect the latest state of the product line.

This article is like commercial spam

(2006-08-24) The current copy'n'paste from their website is not encyclopedia standard. Gronky 23:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - this article really needs improving

I'd like to know what tools Enterprise Edition includes, how are they modified, why does it only run with Redhat, etc.

There is nothing qualifying the fact that it is "the leading software", nor is it easy to see what Enterprise edition does. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.59.182.203 (talk) 11:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

I've taken out more market-y language and removed the section on community edition - there isn't really such a thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.167.206.210 (talk) 00:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Removed Advert Tag

I think the article has been cleaned up enough. Certainly it is positive, and if people know of issues then please add them. But there are no longer unjustifiable statements, IMHO. Tuntable (talk) 11:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• The "CollabNet's products" section is pretty much promotional: it's a list of products with a lot of detail and no secondary references whatsoever. If these products are of encyclopedic relevance such needs to be pointed out by reference to reliable reviews, for instance. If that is done, the tag (and perhaps the "lacks references" tag) could be removed. That is, either the list is referenced or it goes. Drmies (talk) 15:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I cleaned up the article of promotion and removed a lot of sources to the company website and Softpedia. The article still has some sourcing and promotion issues, but so do most of our company articles, so I felt it was sufficient to remove the tags. CorporateM (Talk) 15:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Sources

• I happen to know personally the JOLT awards from Dr. Dobbs (the longtime most authoritative magazine for enterprise software) is significant, and I would suggest adding it.[1].
• Dr. Dobbs also has several other articles.[2]
• Application Development Trends is another good source, though in general they do a lot of press release repostings we don't consider acceptable[3]
• Although it is slightly promotional by our standards, CBR's description of CollabNet's products is pretty close to what we would want here as a succinct product description.
• More sources[4][5][6][7]

Essentially what is needed is to go through your press coverage report, or do a Google News search. Identify articles that are independently written, write the information that is in the press article neutrally and source it. Keep in mind Wikipedia has higher standards of neutrality than the press, so we may not write it the same way just because it's sourced. Put together a draft of one section you would like to improve and ask an impartial editor to consider it using Request Edit. Let me know if you have questions or need help. CorporateM (Talk) 16:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)