User talk:Fuzi12

Speedy deletion nomination of ShowDocument


A tag has been placed on ShowDocument, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add  on the top of ShowDocument and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Eeekster (talk) 09:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments on your draft article
Hello! As requested, I've had a look at your ShowDocument draft.
 * I would take out any alpha features, and put them in when they're stable.
 * I've trimmed the descriptions, and removed duplicate information
 * Under "Development" I would put a bit more info about the history of the software, such as when it was first released. Also, you should explain what "dedicated meeting rooms" are in the context of ShowDocument Now.
 * I am puzzled by the announcement that ShowDocument Now supports DOC, PDF and PPT file formats, when ShowDocument was also said to support these formats. If this is the case, take out the information in the "Development" section, as it's nothing new.

I think that the article is well on its way to being moved into the main article space. Nice work! &mdash; QuantumEleven 11:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanx! - I worked on the parts you said need fixing. I wonder how can i move it to the main space(?) (edit: it has been already moved, but if you think it needs more changes, any advice will be appreciated!) User:Fuzi12, 13 September 2009

Talkback
Codf1977 (talk) 09:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

ShowDocument help request
I would really appreciate if any one would help me fix my page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ShowDocument. I edited it a number of times now, but everytime comes a new editor and puts these warnings back on. Please review it, see the edits I already made and tell me if more edits are really neccessary and if so, be specific on what should be changed. Thanx! Fuzi12 (talk) 11:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, the first thing I see is that there's only one reference to a source that isn't the company/manufacturer extolling the virtues of its own product. The CNET blurb is a great ref, the kind of thing that a good article needs more of.  If other sources have reviewed the product, those would be good sources too, not just to stick on the references list like heads on a wall, but specifically for what they say about the product.  If this is a fringe player or an untested newcomer, there's really nothing notable about it (and the article should be deleted), whereas if its existence has impacted the market or the culture then there will be news or reviews written about it.  The encyclopedia fulfills its function best by allowing those who want to learn more to find the primary sources and make their own judgments.
 * The anti-advertising guideline is there specifically so that the encyclopedia discusses all aspects of a notable subject, rather than simply what its creators/owners want people to like about it. For example, add the "everyone can control everything / edit conflict" shortcoming that has its own paragraph in the CNET review.  Are there other flaws, bugs, or creatively-stifling design problems? Basically the content of a good article needs to be well-rounded, reflecting all significant views of the subject.
 * Hope this helps! ☯.Zen  Swashbuckler  .☠  17:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanxs, I appreciate your advice. I tried adding references and cutting out things while adding others, to make it more well-rounded like you said. I'd like to get your feedback on these changes. Fuzi12 (talk) 11:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry it's been a few days since I looked at this. It's definitely a lot better as to notability - perhaps to the point where the notability tag can be removed within consensus. It still reads like an advertisement, though. I took the liberty of adding the early bug I cited above, about the "everyone edits at once" problem, which the article currently notes has since been fixed. Since no product is without problems, any article about a product that does not mention its problems at all is almost by definition an advertisement. With some more information about flaws and problems that some of these reviewers have found, or at least some info about what the product is and is not suited for, then the article will be ready for the advertising tag to come off. ☯.Zen  Swashbuckler  .☠  20:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, thank you for the advice. I edited the article and added a few flaws and disadvantages on "features" with the purpose of trying to balance it, like you said. Please tell me how it looks to you now, regarding this issue.Fuzi12 (talk) 11:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)