This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies 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.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel 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.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Professional sound production, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sound recording and reproduction 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.Professional sound productionWikipedia:WikiProject Professional sound productionTemplate:WikiProject Professional sound productionProfessional sound production
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
It is a Market Wired press release which states Waves is the source. I've been doing a little searching and I can't find any others. There are many articles covering this but they are all verbatim republishes. (See Google query for "waves fifa world cup vuvuzela".) Should the tidbit be removed or is it OK?
The ref could also be swapped for any of the others but that might obfuscate the fact that the source is actually Waves. For example Pro Sound Web covered this but it says 'by PSW Staff' and there is not an indication the text is near-unchanged.
Merely republishing a press release is probably not far-removed enough to be WP:SECONDARY.
I don't feel experienced enough to know what to think here. If somebody else feels compelled one way feel free to take appropriate action. Just wanted to bring attention to it.