Talk:Cassandre software

Notability
Of five references given, four are authored by the author of the subject software. That makes them primary sources at best and COI at worst. The Zhou article does not discuss the subject in depth. There is no evidence this is a notable topic. Rhadow (talk) 13:19, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * IMHO Cassandre is a well-established software in qualitative data analysis. I just noticed the deletion request. The article will be improved to show notability. However, this might take longer than seven days. I hope this is okay. GrryT (talk) 05:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank to both of you for your help and contributions. Please do not hesitate to give me piece of advice if I am doing wrong. Freezincurtain (talk) 07:56, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * As mentioned in the article, The Zhou article is about the Hypertopic protocol used by Cassandre. As stated by Rhadow, the Zhou article is thus not talking of Cassandre in itself; rather, it is the scientific reference for its computational 'roots'.
 * As GrryT, I think that improving the article might take longer than a week. I hope this won't be a problem.
 * As you can see in the history, I have added a paragraph addressing the notability issue. This includes adding second hand scientific references (some in English, some in French). That's why I just removed the 'proposed deletion' message. I hope this is the right way to proceed.

Proposed updates
Being Cassandre's author, I use the request edit procedure to suggest the following minor corrections :
 * Cassandre Stable release is now 3.18.01.31 / Jan 2018
 * Cassandre's developer is not the French politician presented here Christophe Lejeune but a Belgian social scientist working at the university of Liege. Although wearing the same name, these two people are different.
 * In the Features section, the reference to concordance should be replaced with concordancer. Following the (internal) links shows that concordancer and KWIC are similar while concordance is different.

Freezincurtain (talk) 07:37, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Reply
I have changed the WL's so they do not erroneously point to other individuals. One further issue I'm concerned with is the use of journals without page numbers, a practice which complicates a reader's quest to verify the information that the article presents. A reader ought not to spend an inordinate amount of time looking for the exact page where this software is mentioned. One editor placed a page range of 43-54 from one journal in the references, indicating that the software is mentioned on 11 pages in total, when in fact it is mentioned on only page, page 47.

What happened here was that once identifying information was placed into the citation template manager, the software sought out and then filled in the blank fields with information. The system, not understanding which one page was needed, filled in the entire page range. The editor who entered this information and appended it to the article was no doubt trying to save themselves some time, by not having to go back and manually enter the correct page. This editor's speed becomes the reader's delay. This is not an acceptable practice from an editor who should be building relationships with the other editors whose decisions ultimately affect the article in question. I do so hope that this point could be kept in mind for future reference. Regards,  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   10:37, 1 February 2018 (UTC)