Talk:Buildkite

Language

@MicrobiologyMarcus - updated some of the language in the //Product// section after a re-read. How do the changes I've made line up with what you saw as advertising-ish? Appreciate the feedback. Tehinterwebz (talk) Tehinterwebz (talk) 23:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@Tehinterwebz: I still find the article very promotional, also curious as to why the article is laid out in a timeline when there are just few statements of facts suitable for inclusion in the wiki that could be summarized in a History section? The article also does a poor job of identifying if the subject is the product or the company. The article should stick to one and ensure that it is WP:Notable. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 17:36, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

@MicrobiologyMarcus Fair enough. If you're able to share an example of what you find promotional about it, that'd be helpful - I think I mentioned it in your ping on my talk page, I followed near-exactly the format of another CICD tool CircleCI, in terms of what information is presented at what point and in what way so I'm kind of grasping at straws about what's coming across as promotional. Maybe I just chose a bad example?

If you think a History section makes more sense, easy fix, I'll update that. And then I'll take some time and flesh it out. Everything I've seen shows notability, and the profiles and primary sources are there as supporting rather than primary. I'll do some digging and find some new sources though. Tehinterwebz (talk) 10:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I feel I've addressed both the notability and created a more neutral article. I'll leave the advertising claim on for a few weeks and then remove it if I don't hear otherwise. Tehinterwebz (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:57, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Tehinterwebz Please do not remove the tag yourself. I just navigated here because of the tag, and the problem definitely remains. The entire article reads like investment copy, there isn't even a mention of the product till the end, and that section is pretty much ALL advertisement. There is also zero reason to mention offhand that one of the founders is on a list for rich young people? Again, all of this sounds like pure promotion.

Unfortunately, a lot of newer pages in this area will have similar problems, so I wouldn't use them as a benchmark or ideal to strive for. Perhaps a better-established CI/CD tool like Docker would be a good example to look towards? I know it's got a lot more content, but observing how the page unfolds can help you see where you can improve the gaps here.

Not trying to be a total downer: your switch to "History" was a good one, and you're clearly continuously improving the text (CI pun :P). Just don't think it's ready to be untagged until some more of the WP:PUFFERY is removed, and a bit more context is given in the lead for what the company actually produces.

I won't have the bandwidth to watch this page, but feel free to ping me back here directly via username if you make changes you want feedback on. I'm happy to iterate back and forth a bit on improvements till I feel comfortable removing the tag for you (I don't think there's an actual rule about this, but it's always better not to remove these sorts of tags on your own work! I'm happy to do so once we improve a bit more, I'd recommend first finding some more RS mentions of the product itself that can build that part of the picture out.) Chiselinccc (talk) 05:54, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Chiselinccc your feedback is fantastic, thank you. I'll have a look at Docker and get more into the actual product, and yes, always aiming for continual improvement ;).

I didn't actually check to see if CircleCI was a newer page, my gut was that it wouldn't have been...but that's on me for not checking in the first place.

And appreciate the feedback - definitely sounds like the main body copy could still use work; it's an balance between what's interesting (who works with them) and what sounds promotional (founder on young rich). I'll take another sweep to clean that up now, and appreciate the offer to work with me on the content. I'll take a beat and gather some more product-based information and ping you here, likely in few weeks, as updating Wikipedia is a passion rather than a day job. :) Tehinterwebz (talk) 22:33, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Spectacular, glad the feedback was of use @Tehinterwebz! I salute your strong sense of balance, and I'll be here whenever you circle around for further feedback. Happy editing, and happy IRL-stuff as well, until we next speak! Chiselinccc (talk) 08:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

First pass here @Chiselinccc. Still have some work to do (like what I mention in my edit comment around citing the components section...); when you get a chance I'd love your eyes on though. Tehinterwebz (talk) 23:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Notability flag

Please note, I've messaged the user that flagged the notability of the sources and am actively reviewing. Any help is appreciated! ~~~ Tehinterwebz (talk) 01:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Working through feedback, and notability sources - find at User talk:Alpha3031#Question from Tehinterwebz (talk) 01:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC). please bear with me as I do this intermittently around my day job! As above, any help appreciated. Tehinterwebz (talk) 23:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)