User talk:Proger XP/UverseWiki

Userspace Draft Guidelines
Welcome to your userspace draft. More latitude in terms of content and structure is given while you are working on a userspace draft of an article. This is not to be abused (don't put outright copyright violations, anything that would be immediateley reverted if it were an article in main article space, attacks). A Userspace draft is intended to allow an author time to work on an article to improve it and is not Permanant Web storage, nor does it contribute to the subject's Google Ranking. With that I'll start my review of the article. Hasteur (talk) 13:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

NPP Ruberic

 * 1) References
 * 2) * Many references are to i-forge.net. As it appears that the site hosts the UverseWiki, it's not a good idea to be referencing to that site so specifically as it falls afoul of WP:SELFPUB. Several of these need to be combined or removed.
 * Yes, i-forge.net and all its subdomains are part of one platform and are definitely not 3rd party resources. The problem was that I was attempting to give references to it because there are no 3rd party resources. Actually, because of this I thought the article was inappropriate for Wikipedia (at least at this time) and I am surprised you've moved it to drafts. Proger_XP (talk) 14:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) * References to MediaWiki and DokuWiki aren't really appropriate in this article. Having the link to their articles will allow the user to get the competing software's sites.
 * But I'm not trying to advertise anything, articles often cross-link to each other to give encyclopedic view. Am I mistaken? Proger_XP (talk) 14:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) * Blogs and Forums are typically not accepted as reliable sources due to the fact that we can't verify the reliability of the author.
 * Well, the author is myself anyway. I thought they provided more information on the subject. Should I remove them? Proger_XP (talk) 14:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) External Links
 * 2) * The uverse.i-forge.net site appears to be down. Ideally we want to only link to/reference sites that are active.  I'd probably mark the link as WP:DEADLINK
 * It does for you? Proger_XP (talk) 14:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) * We definitely don't need all the extra external links to the i-forge.net subdomains.
 * 2) * External Links are (by convention) one to a line so it's easy to see what is out there for extra information
 * 3) Content
 * 4) * The repeated keyword bolding of UverseWiki outside of the first sentence is not really appropriate as it feels as though the software is being sold.
 * I have made it as in WackoWiki article. Replaced with "the framework" like in MediaWiki. Proger_XP (talk) 14:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) * The syntax comparison section in the markup section really doesn't belong. If people are more interested in finding out, they'll go and research it.
 * I felt it was one of the ways to distinguish the project from alikes. Proger_XP (talk) 14:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) * I'd probably move the features section above the differences so that people who are casually browsing can get an idea of what they will get.
 * Sorry, doesn't the previous point means the differences section is redundant? Proger_XP (talk) 14:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll look a bit later, but this will get you started. Hasteur (talk) 13:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much again. Proger_XP (talk) 14:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I want to make this clear for myself so there's no misunderstanding later: is it fine for Wikipedia to have an article on a project that is (presumably) notable and to some extent unique but has zero 3rd party references yet? Because what you have said in Notability/Noticeboard‎ looked like it's not possible and thus there's no point spending your time on this draft. Proger_XP (talk) 15:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If there are zero 3rd party references yet, then no it's not likely to be accepted as a source. I'm sorry we couldn't keep it, but don't let that discourage you from contributing to the Wiki. Hasteur (talk) 15:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks for the assistance, Hasteur. You can delete the draft if that's what rules require. Perhaps we will get back to this when the project gets more popular. I found more help than I expected :) Proger_XP (talk) 16:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)