Talk:General Architecture for Text Engineering

Notable?
I'd prefer multiple, independent, reliable sources demonstrating clear notability of the subject per WP:N, rather than mention of the number of times an article on the topic has been cited. --Ronz (talk) 18:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Ggorrell: Citations, registered users etc. from reputable sites, that you can check yourself, seems bulletproof to me. I don't know how that can be improved upon. Perhaps you can suggest what you have in mind? Maybe there is some preferred way to approach this within Wikipedia that I am not familiar with? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ggorrell (talk • contribs) 10:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Valyt (talk) 10:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC): If you search on Google UK for "GATE", the first hit is the gate.ac.uk website. Seeing as "gate" is a very common word, this should count as a metric of notoriety.

Granted, the field where GATE is active (Natural Language Processing) is somewhat narrow, but within that field, GATE is really prominent, the only comparable system being UIMA, originally from IBM, now an Apache project. This is reflected by the large number of citations (800+ citations in academic literature is actually very high!).

Ggorrell (Ggorrell) 11:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC): Added an article by Seth Grimes, a book by Manu Konchady and a couple of scholarly articles. Was this more what you had in mind?

Ggorrell (Ggorrell) 11:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC): Ronz seems to have lost interest. I'll wait another day then remove the notability flag. Apologies in advance if I am misunderstanding procedure here!
 * Not a problem. I work on a great deal of articles, and can easily miss continuations of discussions I've started.  Valyt notified me on my talk page, which I appreciate. --Ronz (talk) 15:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Formatting refs
I'm not sure what, if any, links in the External links section are meant to be references. At this point it would be a good idea to start using inline citations so we know what references are being used and where, as well as what information we may need to find references for, per WP:V. --Ronz (talk) 15:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Also the refs come after the punctuation, with no spacing between. If there are multiple refs, there should be no spacing between. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

GATE publishing license
With regard to http://gate.ac.uk/gate/doc/index.html and http://gate.ac.uk/gate/licence.html, I think GATE is published under a LGPL v2 license and not a CC license. The CC_BY-ND license is only chosen for the website, as it can be found at the footer of http://gate.ac.uk/. KlaasSchmidt (talk) 20:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Good point! I fixed that now. Valyt (talk) 23:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

needs work
Low number of independent reliable sources indicating notability; includes WP:PEACOCK terms without support, and parts read like a how to manual. While GATE seems notable enough to make the existence of an encyclopedia entry appropriate, the tone and level of detail doesn't seem to be justified. Gerardw (talk) 10:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Any chance you could give specific details of your concerns? I think that the article is pretty neutral in tone (I work on GATE so I do potentially have a conflict of interest) and recent edits have simply revolved around bring the page up to date (it was flagged as out of date earlier in the year). Nowhere int he article does it claim that GATE is the best or greatest or any other WP:PEACOCK terms that I can find. It never claims performance figures for any of the components/tools. It does point out how often GATE is used within the community and as the basis for other tools and backs this up with references to papers and other verifiable sources (e.g. Sourceforge download figures). The suite of tools that make up GATE is exceptionally large and this page doesn't attempt to be a manual -- it doesn't even attempt to be an exhaustive list of features. Even the actual GATE manual isn't exhaustive and that runs to over 600 pages! The question of notability has been raised before and was dealt with by expanding the references etc. Could you explain how you think the page still lacks verifiable references etc. greenwoodma (talk) 18:39, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Unsupported terms such as very widely, lion's share, convenient graphical environment  (who says it's convenient?),powerful research tool. Description of the resources tree reads like a how to manual. 8 of the 15 listed references appear to be the GATE website and one is a blog. Gerardw (talk) 18:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments and editing the article. I've also now trimmed the list of external links a little as well as some of them were duplicating information greenwoodma (talk) 15:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://gate.ac.uk/family/coming-soon/, http://gate.ac.uk/family/, http://gate.ac.uk/sale/tao/, http://gate.ac.uk/overview.html, http://gate.ac.uk/sale/tao/splitch3.html#c, http://gate.ac.uk/teamware/ The website has non-commercial terms which is NOT compatible with Wikipedia's CC-BY-SA license.. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. NortyNort (Holla) 13:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)