Jump to content

Talk:GrammaTech

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Improvements

[edit]

I have re-edited this page to try and remove any 'promotional' words. The goal of this page is to describe an existing company. Just like the page for Coverity. If you agree that this is no longer an advertisement, please remove the speedy deletion request.--Nandotamu (talk) 19:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-edited this page to try and remove any 'prmotional' words.--Nandotamu (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to improve the page continously. I don't see any conflict. My goal is to make sure that GrammaTech is listed as a Static Analysis tools vendor. Simply. I followed the guide of a similar company Coverity with a similar page. I am adding data to this talk page but no one is responding. Please input some items in the talk page on why this is inappropriate while the very similar Coverity page is ok. --Nandotamu (talk) 20:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've refactored your comments here so they are in chronological order. In the future, please maintain this order. Here's why I tagged the article:
  • Notability and additional references - The Wiki guideline for company notability is at WP:COMPANY. A company is "notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources." I'm not entirely convinced that the two references establish notability, so more references to reliable secondary sources need to be added. I removed the link to the EETimes article that was written by a Grammatech employee. That's not notability, that's just an external link, and I don't think it all that appropriate.
  • Conflict of interest - I believe that you work for Grammatech, so until someone else (who's not me) who doesn't work for the company takes a glance at the article, this should stay.
Does this help? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 21:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding notability. It seems that "static code analysis" is valid section on Wikipedia and even on Google. In fact, a search for static analysis on google returns the Wikipedia reference as the first result. So, it seems 'notable' to indicate companies that offer this technology in the Wikipedia pages. GrammaTech is one of the 3 significant players that offer this technology (Coverity and KlocWork being the other 2). So even while GrammaTech has been the subject of articles. Also, I am not an employee of GrammaTech. I have done some consulting for them in the past and have not received any income from them in over 8 months. Static Analysis is a compelling technology and I am trying to stay abreast of it and noted that they were not represented on the wikipedia pages so I added it. I am new to wikipedia editing and since I am not supposed to remove the notice, how do I get someone else to review this article so that they can remove the notice. Your help is appreciated. --Nandotamu (talk) 18:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Company Suggestions

[edit]

Hello. We here at GrammaTech have just learned of the recent creation of this Wikipedia page for our company. We would like to help improve this page, but do not want to run afoul of policies regarding conflict of interest. Accordingly, we will follow the guidelines of the FAQ and will post suggestions to this discussion page. Thanks in advance for help in perfecting this article.

For starters, we would like to suggest that the spelling of "Ithaca" be corrected.

(GrammaTech (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

You can make small changes like that without a problem. The issue with conflict of interest comes up when adding substantial content such as product information. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 21:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. We fixed up a handful of minor matters, condensed the product list, and added a History section with references. We look forward to your feedback.
GrammaTech (talk) 06:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and removed the external links you added into the text. In general, Wiki articles should not have such links. The rest of what you wrote is fine, I think. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. We have a few more questions:
(1) We had not realized the rule on external links. Is it considered useful to try to put such links in the references, or does one just let them go?
(2) We notice that a robot automatically detected the overlap between GrammaTech (the user) and GrammaTech (the WP page). Should we have avoided this overlap (because it is a nuisance for you all) , or is it wholly appropriate because this is the way we can get conflict-of-interest oversight?
(3) Someone dropped some policy info in Talk: GrammaTech (the user). Is this just to be helpful, or is this a shot across our bow?
GrammaTech (talk) 15:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean Wuhwuzdat's comment on your page, that user is not a bot. Wuhwuzdat's comments are most certainly allowed on your page. Compared to what I've seen, your edits here have been, in my opinion, fairly innocuous. This article definitely does have the potential to go downhill, though, so I'd advise you to be careful of your edits from here on out. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We're going to take your advice and wrap this up. We can think of just two other desirable edits — in analogy with Coverity's page:
(1) Add our logo to the Infobox.
(2) Add an external link to our co-founder Tom Reps’s Wisconsin web site.
Would these be OK for us to do?
GrammaTech (talk) 17:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having not heard back from you, we have gone ahead and done (2). Could you please advise on the proper way to get the tags removed. Do we just wait for some editorial authority to review the matter, or do we have to request that the matter be reviewed?
GrammaTech (talk) 13:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Sorry, I don't spend all my time read Wikipedia. By "tags", do you mean the text on your talk page? You're technically allowed to remove whatever text you want from your talk page, but lots of people prefer to not blank their page. As to your request to add a logo, you can upload it yourself if you want.. but you probably want to read WP:IUP first.

I should probably state here that this talk page is meant to be about the article content; for other issues, you can leave a message on my talk page. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on GrammaTech. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:56, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on GrammaTech. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:44, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:GrammaTech&oldid=1202417207"