User talk:Ev2geny/sandbox

This article appears to be written like an advertisement
Is it possible to specify exactly which part of the article appears to be written like an advertisement? Or is it an article as a whole?Ev2geny (talk) 18:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It is the article as a whole in my view. It is likely due to the fact that it is mostly based on primary sources and is full of peacock and weasel words giving undue weight to the positive aspects of the project.  I think that resolving the sourcing issues mentioned below will mostly solve this issue as well. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 15:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

This article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations
I do not quite understand this issue. This article has 24 + 2(as some of the are referred to twice)=26 in-line citations. Which in my view quite a big amount for article of such size. Comparable Microsoft Project has only 7 in-line citations. So which part of an article require more in-line citations? Ev2geny (talk) 18:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The sources used for this article are:
 * Agree. This reference is removedEv2geny (talk) 20:55, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree. Reverence is removed Ev2geny (talk) 21:08, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree. This reference is removed Ev2geny (talk) 21:08, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree. This reference is removed Ev2geny (talk) 20:55, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * ❌ (not a report about the company, just company provided stats)
 * Agree. This reference is removed Ev2geny (talk) 21:08, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree. This reference is removed Ev2geny (talk) 20:55, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * ❌ (not a report about the company, just company provided stats)
 * ❌ (not a report about the company, just company provided stats)


 * Don't quite agree. This reference is put here just to confirm, the statement that "Spider Project Team is a PMI Registered Education Provider". For this I consider a reference to PMI web site to be a reliable reference Ev2geny (talk) 20:55, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


 * ❌ as it is Russ Archibald's product.
 * Don't quite agree..This is not an Archibald's product. This is Liberzon's product. Liberzon lives in Russia, Archibald lives in the US. Russell D. Archibald is one of the PMI founders and is | such a respected member of the Project Management community that I would consider this to be a disrespect to this gentlemen to classify his book as not being a reliable an independent source.Ev2geny (talk) 20:55, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


 * ❌ (unless I misunderstood, this is a place you can buy the product)
 * Don't quite agree.. This reference to PMI site is put here to confirm the statement, that "Members of Spider Project team have spoken at several PMI and IPMA Congresses and Conferences". For this purposes I consider it to be a reliable source.


 * ❌ (unless I misunderstood, this is a place you can buy the product)
 * Don't quite agree.. This reference to PMI site is put here to confirm the statement, that "Members of Spider Project team have spoken at several PMI and IPMA Congresses and Conferences". For this purposes I consider it to be a reliable source.


 * ❌ (unless I misunderstood, this is a place you can buy the product)
 * Don't quite agree.. This reference to PMI site is put here to confirm the statement, that "Members of Spider Project team have spoken at several PMI and IPMA Congresses and Conferences". For this purposes I consider it to be a reliable source.


 * ❌ as it is Russ Archibald's product.


 * Don't quite agree..This is not an Archibald's product. This is Liberzon's product. Liberzon lives in Russia, Archibald lives in the US. Russell D. Archibald is one of the PMI founders and is | such a respected member of the Project Management community that I would consider this to be a disrespect to this gentlemen to classify his book as not being a reliable an independent source.Ev2geny (talk) 20:55, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree. This reference is removed Ev2geny (talk) 21:08, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree. This reference is removed Ev2geny (talk) 21:08, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree. This reference is removed. Ev2geny (talk) 23:18, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree. This reference is removed. Ev2geny (talk) 23:18, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Partially agree. This document is referenced to provide confirmation, that Spider Project was used in Romtelecom to manage big portfolio. As the article is written by some authors also from Romtelecom, I consider this reference to be reliable for this purposes. However I could not find this document on the independent web site, therefore I have updated statement in the article to reflect this:
 * "Spider Project site has a document, reportedly published together with Romtelecom, Romania at PMICOS conference, where a detailed report is provided on usage of Spider Project for managing of a portfolio of 1,600 projects, containing up to 170,000 activities"
 * Partially agree. This document is referenced to provide confirmation, that Spider Project was used in Romtelecom to manage big portfolio. As the article is written by some authors also from Romtelecom, I consider this reference to be reliable for this purposes. However I could not find this document on the independent web site, therefore I have updated statement in the article to reflect this:
 * "Spider Project site has a document, reportedly published together with Romtelecom, Romania at PMICOS conference, where a detailed report is provided on usage of Spider Project for managing of a portfolio of 1,600 projects, containing up to 170,000 activities"


 * This is a primary source but it confirms non-controversial point (amount of releases) published. In such a way in my view it confirms to Wikipedia's policy on the usage of primary sources: A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge Ev2geny (talk) 22:42, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a primary source but it confirms non-controversial point (amount of releases) published. In such a way in my view it confirms to Wikipedia's policy on the usage of primary sources: A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge Ev2geny (talk) 22:42, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


 * This is a primary source but it confirms non-controversial point (different versions). In such a way in my view it confirms to Wikipedia's policy on the usage of primary sources: A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge Ev2geny (talk) 23:18, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a primary source but it confirms non-controversial point (different versions). In such a way in my view it confirms to Wikipedia's policy on the usage of primary sources: A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge Ev2geny (talk) 23:18, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


 * ❌ as it is Russ Archibald's product.
 * Don't quite agree  As mentioned above, this is not Archibald's product.
 * ❌ as it is Russ Archibald's product.
 * Don't quite agree  As mentioned above, this is not Archibald's product.
 * Don't quite agree  As mentioned above, this is not Archibald's product.


 * ❌ can be found by searching the page with search for "spider"
 * ✅ it appears on the surface, although I have no way of confirming through the paywall.
 * Agree. Removed from references
 * ✅ it appears on the surface, although I have no way of confirming through the paywall.
 * Agree. Removed from references
 * Agree. Removed from references


 * This is about the best I can do for checking all of these sources as I have no ability to read Russian or get through paywalls, but as you can see, there may be one to four reliable sources out of all of these entries, and this tag means that there is a lack of in-line citations to reliable sources. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 21:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As mentioned above, I think your did not always look at what the reference was trying to confirm, when considering whether the source is reliable or not. Very often, the source was reliable in relation to what it was trying to confirm. Any way, I have now added the following, what I believe, truly reliable sources:














 * I also added references to the sites of the partners outside Russia. These references I believe are reliable for the used purposes: to simply confirm, that these partners exist.

This article relies on references to primary sources
There are indeed several references to primary sources (which is probably difficult to avoid for such type on an article). But there are also sufficient references (in my view) to none-primary sources. Namely:

In relation to features and functionality:



In relation to participation of Spider Project team in PMI:

In relation to big projects:

Comparable Microsoft Project article has references ONLY to company website.

Af far as I can see Wikipedia does not disallow usage of primary sources, provided certain care is taken. So, where exactly were primary sources used incorrectly?Ev2geny (talk) 18:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As you can see above, this article is almost entirely based on primary or otherwise non-reliable sources. While primary sources can be used for certain pieces of non-controversial data, it can not be used to establish Notability.  As such, I suggest that you request USERFICATION of this "article" as I expect it will be nominated for AfD for failure to meet the GNG before too much longer. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 21:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * There are 7 references now, which I think are truly reliable (plus all the others), hence the question if Notability is probably not applicable any longer? Ev2geny (talk) 23:18, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

This article needs additional citations for verification
Is it possibly to specify exactly in which area more citations are needed? At the moment there are 26 in-line citations, which I though cover pretty much all statements of the article.Ev2geny (talk) 14:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 26 in-line citations to mostly primary sources do not verify anything. So, the exact answer here would be likely all of them.   — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 21:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * See all the comments above Ev2geny (talk) 23:18, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Some or all of this article's listed sources may not be reliable
Is it possible to specify exactly which sources are considered unreliable?Ev2geny (talk) 14:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Most of them... See above. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 21:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * As mentioned, I think now out of 29 references 7 are truly reliable; 2 are primary, but there usage does not conflict with Wikipedia policy; the rest are also reliable, considering what they are trying to confirm.Ev2geny (talk) 23:18, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because... Please help here. I have no clue on what is happening. Apparently there are some issues with some of the references I have used in my article, but I have no idea what the issue is. I was working to improve my article with reliable sources and now I get this. I am totally lost --Ev2geny (talk) 08:08, 22 June 2014 (UTC)