Talk:Origin (data analysis software)

Comments
To be included in Wikipedia, you must show that your product meets WP:SOFTWARE. All articles must meet WP:N and WP:V. Also, no original research is allowed per WP:OR. Check these policies out. If you provide this information, your article will not have a problem. Mattisse(talk) 20:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I am an Origin enthusiast, and also know a few things about Igor Pro, and MATLAB, other analysis and plotting software.


 * These software packages are all in wide use worldwide, and deserve some discussion on their merits. MATLAB has already been discussed, and I added Origin article.


 * The information within is relevant/notable and verifiable. It is notable in that it pertains to a wide group, scientists and engineers, and the products are produced by corporations. Further, information is verifiable by reference to corporation websites, and software reviews, such as http://www.scientific-computing.com/scwjanfeb05origin_sigmaplot.html


 * As I am new, please help me by telling me some details as to what I must do to better match guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Igor93 (talk • contribs)


 * Origin easily meets the WP:N and WP:SOFTWARE. I agree the article could be improved, but the made concern is to make it more NPOV. --Karnesky 22:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

With Wikipedia the issue is not "truth" but "verifiability"
Because Wikipedia is trying to become a respectable source, you need to reference your information with citation footnotes. In other words, Wikipedia wants a person to be able to go to your article and be able to read reliable, verifiable third-party sources to prove the article meets Wikipedia's standards.

The only article that comes to mind is Fun Home to give you the idea. It's not the best example because it's on a completely different topic, but it shows you the formatting.

I'll try to come across some better examples (closer to the topic of your article) to show you. Mattisse(talk) 22:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Chill out and read WP:BITE. This isn't a great article, but it is a very good effort for a newcomer.  I've certainly seen poorer articles which have been around for longer.  There's no reason for four cleanup tags to be put on it.  I'm going to remove a couple of your cleanup tags, because I think they're excessive.  Please do not speak in generalities, but mention specifics.  This article is verifiable & the publisher's URL is in the article.  Multiple reviews and independent descriptions and documentation for this program exist.  I don't see any lack of citations in this article in comparison to any other software stub.  Please mark specific sentences which you think deserve a citation.  --Karnesky 04:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Good for you for fixing up the article so much!
Those tags often have that effect, to the author's and Wikipedia's benefit. Mattisse(talk) 13:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk page discusses this already
As I'm sure you know all aricles must have reference citations from multiple verifiable, unbiased, reliable third-party sources per WP:V. From your talk page, it looks like this has been discussed with you before. If you need an example of what is meant by this, check out Fidel Castro and notice how the footnotes reference facts. GBYork 16:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no policy that states that every article must have citations, much less that they have multiple citations. Citations are good when there are points of contention or when something isn't generally known.  Most software articles have few sources, partly because they may easily be verified by their webpage & sites that their webpage links to.  The unreferenced tag does not really help improve the article, as you haven't said what you think deserves citation.  Please use the citation-needed template to mark specific passages and/or comment on this talk page. --Karnesky 17:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)