Talk:LogicalDOC

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

As suggested by administrator Smerdis of Tlön in my talk page, i ask if some Wikipedia administrator could check this page because i think it obeys to the Wikipedia rules. The article is about a notable Open Source project, already referenced from other Wikipedia articles. Please just give me some kind of feedback, i don't want do nothing bad but i think it correct to made this widely used software some kind of description in Wikipedia.

Regards

Well, last time the article came up it was deleted as unambiguous advertising. This time, I think it should qualify as a Wikipedia article, although I made a slight change here. You can undo it if you want to, but I made this tweak just to make the article more neutral, and to avoid second person grammar such as "our" "we" and "you". I'm still not sure if this will meet the notability guidelines though, but considering that you've made a statement which a claim of notability "In the 2010 LogicalDOC won the Infoworld_Bossie_Awards in the category of Document Management." Accompanying that with a news reference makes it obvious enough that this article's subject will be notable. Minima © (talk) 08:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your time Minima. I ask you if you think that i can replace the old article with this new one, since the old page was blocked. I ask you if you can give me some kind of hints about who i can contact in otder to ask the removal of this lock.

Best Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sprmw7 (talk • contribs) 09:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on draft[edit]

The article looks much better than the ones I remember from history. A couple comments and a question, mostly about one paragraph:

In 2006 two developers involved in wide eCommerce projects with expertises in commercial solutions like Intershop Enfinity or IBM WebSphere decided to start the new company Logical Objects with the mission to maintain and evolve the Open Source project Contineo. After one year, a lot of diseases arised with other developers inside the Contineo's development team so Logical Objects decided to branch the product and to start a completely new product called LogicalDOC.

First, do you have a reliable reference for any of this information? If not, it might be best to remove it entirely.

I have a hair-pulling hatred of the use of the word "solution" to refer to any software package or service, even in a historical sense like here, and consider it a blatant and automatic violation of the neutrality policy. "eCommerce" is also grating, especially in CamelCase; it reeks of 1999 in any case.

Also, what is this about "diseases"? I'm not sure the word "Enterprise" in the opening sentence adds information or needs a capital letter, either.

Apart from that, the text seems reasonably clear and otherwise neutral. If this information can be sourced, I'd go with something like:

In 2006 two developers with a background in commercial document management software decided to start the new company Logical Objects with the mission to maintain and evolve the Open Source project Contineo. After one year, a lot of disagreements arised with other developers inside the Contineo's development team so Logical Objects decided to branch the product and to start a completely new product called LogicalDOC.

As to notability, do you have anything else besides the InfoWorld award? My own opinion is that anything that has to do with newfangled stuff like computers needs to show some kind of significant effect on history or technology. Open source projects tend to be treated less rigorously than others for notability purposes in any case. Another source would help, preferably one with readership outside the IT field. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help for References[edit]

Thanks for your feedback. I applied your hints.

Regarding the sources, the LinkedIN profiles of the founders would be enough? What is stated is true, but in order to source them i would have to publish personal informations, and i don't know if this is correct.

Regarding additional references outside the IT world, what kind of references you can suggest to me? Do you think i have to find relevant users using LogicalDOC and insert a list? I ask you some kind of hints to perform this task.

Best Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sprmw7 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LinkedIN profiles are user-generated, so they aren't really reliable sources. As to non-IT sources, something that isn't a press release from a business paper of the Wall Street Journal or Business Week type would surely help. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help, but i don't think that the Wall Street Journal can write an article about LogicalDOC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sprmw7 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LogicalDOC Logo[edit]

I have added then removed the product logo image since i didn't know that i can demonstrate it is the real logo and that i have the permission to use it in this page. But can you tell me how i have to demonstrate it is the real logo and that i have the permission to use it in this article? Can i upload the same image without the 'tm' symbol? By now i just uploaded the logo image i found in the Open Source distribution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sprmw7 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]