User talk:Astigitana

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [ Articles for creation help desk], or on the [ . Please remember to link to the submission!
 * You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Libby norman (talk) 10:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [ Articles for creation help desk], or on the [ . Please remember to link to the submission!
 * You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Jamesx12345 (talk) 21:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Help request for NetOwl
Hi Astigitana and thanks for your message. I think it is better to have a fresh eye on articles that I've previously reviewed, but I'm happy to assist with some feedback.

The article is looking stronger from a referencing point of view, although you need to ensure all references do actually support the statements made. I'd be concerned that the Products section remains unreferenced – this makes it more likely that another editor will criticise it on grounds of promotion/advertising or simply question why info is in there if you can't evidence it with valid external references. Might it be better to give a summarised list along the lines of 'products include', listing only those products you can support with external refs? Remember it's fine to use refs multiple times within one article to support different statements.

I'd move History above products – that's my personal preference as it gives background before discussing current status. Note that the first paragraph of History doesn't have sources. Without a reference, you will quite possibly be challenged for the statement "It was one of the first English named entity extraction products available", even if you personally know this to be true. Currently history also duplicates information within Products (again unsourced), so you might want to address this.

I would definitely take off the ® at first use of NetOwl – again a personal viewpoint, but I think trademark symbols are ugly and counter-productive within articles, although fine on logos in infoboxes. Inserting them also suggests you are pushing a brand message. Coca-Cola and Minute Maid don't have trademark symbols on Wikipedia, nor does the Washington Post article you are now citing about NetOwl (this, by the way, would be a good supporting reference for NameMatcher), so I'm not sure I'd bother as it's clear it's a registered entity.

In general, it’s better to start with a shorter and really well-supported article that can then evolve over time as more references become available than one that hits repeated problems due to lack of sources. Hope that helps. Libby norman (talk) 11:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at AfC NetOwl (August 4)
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [ Articles for creation help desk], or on the [ . Please remember to link to the submission!
 * You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Tazerdadog (talk) 06:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at AfC NetOwl was accepted
 NetOwl, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! APerson (talk!) 12:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Talkback
APerson (talk!) 01:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)