User talk:Philip Torchinsky/sandbox

Comments on article
Moving comments from my talk page so they'd be more useful here for others. Hi - it's an OK start, but I have a few general thoughts. The biggest issue might be that the sources do not demonstrate the notability of the company. There are too many primary sources - sources controlled by the company itself, such as press releases; its own web site; and an article in Java Magazine written by the company's co-founder. I don't read Russian so can't comment on those sources. I'd put the names of the works in the references, like you have with #18 - SD Times. The reviewer needs to see what sources are being used and they'll figure out anyway that you used too many primary sources. You want to eliminate the press release references. If you can't find an independent third party source, it's likely that the info isn't important enough to be in the article, or else the media would have picked it up and you'd then have a better source. As far as structure, I'd put the history section first, remove the partnerships and customers sections, and put the most important info from those sections in the history section. Remove the conventions section - it's not encyclopedic. Put the specialization info into the products and services section. Does any of the coverage mention their office locations? If not, that's a big flag about notability. Finally, I'd try to put the product info in more layman's terms - perhaps add a sentence of background? It says "The company develops and supports Liberica JDK and JRE binary distributions". I'd add what a binary distribution is, and how it helps a business. Good luck. TimTempleton (talk) (cont)  19:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)