Talk:Imagini

Editing of Imagini article on June 15
I edited the Imagini "About Imagini" section on 15 June after the article was under investigation of copyright violation. I re-wrote the first section and added the appropriate reference for an article that was used to create the new section. The remaining sections and references of the new article are the same as the original. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjastar (talk • contribs) 09:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but your proposed rewrite did not resolve the problem, as the article still contained substantial text copied from the original (and this was not restricted to the "About" section). For one instance, after your proposed rewrite, the article said:


 * The source says:


 * This is only one instance. There was other copied content, some of which was more extensive. We are not able to copy or closely paraphrase content from external sites except in the manner described at WP:COPYPASTE. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

NPOV
After cleaning areas of copyright concern (see above), I took a look at the content of this article and am worried that it may not represent a neutral point of view. One of the core content policies of our website is that material about notable subjects must accurately and completely summarize what reliable sources have to say about them.

I have made the claim that the BBC nominated the website for one of the best of the web more accurate but noticed moving forward that the following sentence seems problematic as well: "Other media such as The Wall Street Journal,  PC World,  The Guardian or bloggers  have positively reviewed Imagini."

With respect to The Wall Street Journal, where is there positive review in this link? It's not a review at all; it's a neutral reporting on the service, including quotes in support and criticism. I have similar concerns about the PC World Piece - beyond noting the approach is novel, it doesn't seem to draw any critical conclusions of its own. What's the positive element in The Guardian's piece? The part where the author says "Meanwhile, I'll have to discuss with my wife why our visual DNA correlation turned out to be 0%."? Where's the review in CNET?

I believe that this article needs a careful review to ensure that the sources are being accurately and fully represented. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Article needs to be rewritten but can be saved
In its current state this article is not acceptable (written like an advertisement). But it has a few reliable sources and can be rewritten. I may do it myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkiPoli (talk • contribs) 18:18, 6 September 2016 (UTC)