Talk:Apache Arrow

comment
I'm including these notes in an effort to help future reviewers understand why this is both notable and not a conflict of interest (I realize that it appears to be both at the moment):


 * The person who submitted it does appear to use the product mentioned, that's true, but there isn't a relationship between the two organizations. None of the sources linked to mention the submitter's company.
 * The Apache Software Foundation is a reputable open-source software organization with its own page on Wikipedia, and not a commercial entity. Many other, similar, projects, have their own pages linked to from that page.
 * In addition, several of the sources referred to in the article have millions of daily views, and are specifically about this project. It's well-known in the data science and data engineering community.

22:21:02, 13 November 2018 review of draft by Jdriboflavin[edit source] Jdriboflavin (talk · contribs) (TB) Draft:Apache Arrow (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi – I'm a contributor to the open source software project referenced in this article. It looks like the article was submitted originally by someone affiliated with a commercial entity, and then that commercial entity was confused with the open source software project itself. It looks like the article has been stripped of those references and now points to a bunch of reliable non-commercial sources that talk about the project. But it seemed like a good idea for someone without a COI to review this before it is submitted. Thank you. Jdriboflavin (talk) 22:21, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

19:33:20, 20 May 2018 review of submission by 109.145.42.244
Hi there, first off, thanks so much for reviewing the Apache Arrow article, I appreciate it.

The article has been declined as not notable, but in the references, Apache Arrow is mentioned in a number of reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. For example, InfoWorld has over 1 million monthly visitors. ZDNet has almost 40 million monthly visitors for its site alone. I won't go through each of the other sources, but they're all online periodicals with significant readership and influence. Could you help me understand what other sorts of things you'd need to see here to view this as notable? Thank you!

109.145.42.244 (talk) 19:33, 20 May 2018 (UTC)


 * This is a software page - my assessment was on sources provided but it is tough for me to evaluate these sources so best seek help at the teahouse or wikiproject computing or resubmit and wait for another reviewer Legacypac (talk) 01:30, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Time to re-submit?
I posted to the creation help desk some suggestions for how to make the article ready for submission. I haven't heard back, so I think I'll just go ahead and re-submit. I'll add a reference to Daniel Abadi's blog post, which I think is compelling evidence.

Regarding other comments made by reviewers of previous submissions:
 * "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article" - I believe this is fixed. We have added references by independent parties that demonstrate notability
 * "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia" - I do not believe that still holds. There are claims about Arrow's purpose, goals and how its design allows it to meet those goals more effectively than competing technologies, but these are essential to its definition, in the same way that an article about a fork might claim "A fork is a utensil for eating food".
 * The note "submitting editor is the chief marketing officer and vice president of strategy at this company" is factually incorrect. Apache Arrow is a project, not a company. Kelly Stirman is indeed CMO for Dremio, which is a company (among several) that uses Arrow in its products and (as is typical with open source software) helps to develop and promote it. Kelly Stirman is not affiliated with the ASF.
 * As I have just re-submitted, I guess that I (Julian Hyde) am now the submitting editor. So, let me state for the record that I am an employee of Looker, which does not use Apache Arrow, I am not paid to develop Apache Arrow, I am a member of Arrow's PMC (due to my membership of ASF and my obligation, in the spirit of public service, to foster software and communities that are for the public good), and I have never written any of the code in Arrow, nor have I directly used in my work or my open source software projects. If Consider this a declaration of my profound disinterest. If I were any more disinterested, you would not be hearing from me at all.

Julianhyde (talk) 22:39, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

This ZDNET Article might be a good source. According to Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources "ZDNet is considered generally reliable for technology-related articles". Cgbuff (talk) 19:38, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

WP:UPE???
I'm curious about this edit of yours where you added the template. I'm all for getting rid of UPE, but it seems unusual that there would be UPE around an open-source project. COI, sure, but paid seems a reach. Do you have any specific reason to believe the author was paid for this? -- RoySmith (talk) 15:58, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Based on the comment left on the draft "REVIEWERS: Please note that the submitting editor is the chief marketing officer and vice president of strategy at this company" Theroadislong (talk) 16:05, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , Yeah, that would be a good clue. Thanks.  -- RoySmith (talk) 16:43, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Undisclosed_paid: "Like the other neutrality-related tags, if you place this tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article. If you do not start this discussion, then any editor is justified in removing the tag without warning.". is there anything you or anybody else consider NPOV issue? If not I would like to ask you to remove COI. mj41 (talk) 10:45, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

✅ Theroadislong (talk) 11:04, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. -- mj41 (talk) 16:54, 18 October 2020 (UTC)