Wikipedia:Peer review/CADSTAR/archive1

CADSTAR

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…
It was flagged as being an advert, I have removed many of the additions that are actually not part of CADSTAR itself but are additional programs that can interact with CADSTAR.
I have also tried to remove much of the sales speak to make it more understandable for the average reader.

I have also removed additional links that are unnecessary as they can be found from the one remaining link.

If there is still something wrong with the article please explain what it is and what I should do to correct it (rather than just change it - I will not learn otherwise).

If more could be said about the software, please explain/provide a link to an article that may give me more ideas on what to/how to say. Thanks, Cadstar_User (talk) 22:58, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, comments to follow within a day or two. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I haven't read the previous version, but this does not seem like an advert to me. Basically, the best thing to do is stick to what reliable sources say and try to use objective language whenever possible.
The Modules section is uncited at the moment, it would probably be a good idea to add some references there. Ideally, I would suggest turning that into a paragraph rather than just using bullet points, but it's not crucial.
When adding citations, they should always be placed come after punctuation, you have "in 1994 [1]." but it should be ""in 1994.[1]"
The References section should come before external links.
I noticed some short sentences side by side, try to combine short sentences if you can, like these two "The basic features of CADSTAR can be tested with the free version of CADSTAR Express [3]. Or Schematic and PCB files produced by CADSTAR can be reviewed using the CADSTAR Design Viewer."
You're using bare urls in the references, you should use templates for those. Wikipedia:Reflinks and Wikipedia:refToolbar 2.0 are very helpful for that.
The best ways to find new sources are usually Google News, Google Books, and Google Scholar. Try to make sure the sources meet the WP:RS guideline, when dealing with products take special care to avoid citing press releases. The {{findsources}} is helpful, I'll put it on the talk page.
Also, if you have a personal connection with CADSTAR, please be aware of our WP:COI guidelines.
Hope this is helpful, good luck! Mark Arsten (talk) 21:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: This is so short there is not a lot to say, still here are some suggestions for improvement.

Biggest problem I see is a lack of references. There are only three refs and the first is only about the sale of the firm and does not mention CADSTAR by name. The other two refs seem to be press releases from the company itself - as it now exists I am not sure the article meets notability guidlelines and may be a condidate for deletion if more reliable sources cannot be found and added.
Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase
My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
The article has no lead and needs one
The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article
Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself
My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way The article may need fewer sections / header too Please see WP:LEAD
Any chance for an image or two?
Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am no expert at wiki editing so I cannot change the links to anything else, neither can I find any links that do not have COI or are simple adverts or from the software makers own website (I have gone through 30+ google pages). However Autocad seems to have plenty of those links - how come that page is OK?

The lack of references is because the only web pages on the internet that reference CADSTAR are those that are trying to sell or advertise it - an obvious COI. Why should that result in the articles deletion? just because it is little talked about?

Re the modules section being uncited - what on earth is that? the software has lots of modules in it, they are listed in the module section.

A lead - its not a dog - what are you on about?

You ask for an image but then say not to breach copyright - no images for CADSTAR exist that are not copyright to Zuken so no I cannot provide any images unless you can tell me otherwise.

The pages linked to are confusing to a noob at wiki editing, examples would be better.

Cheers. Cadstar_User (talk) 21:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]