Talk:Parasoft

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Companies

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies 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.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles

??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

Swtechwr (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article.
CodeCurmudgeon (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection. (Editor declares they are an employee of Parasoft here.)

Notability[edit]

I rewrote the article in an attempt to make it conform to npov and to demonstrate notability. Could you please help me understand which specific parts are written like an advertisement?"

There are way, way too many short sections (which winds up as advertising-like "bulleting"), too much direct assertion about what all the products are for, like an ad brochure, rather than what independent reliable sources have to say about the company and its products/services, like an encyclopedia article. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Gwen. I made some structural changes, content changes, and added some additional third-party references. Please let me know if that helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swtechwr (talk • contribs) 02:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's getting there, it will get there, but there are still worries.

"It features the following 6 principles" followed by a list is straightforward product marketing. Looks like it's cited from a textbook. A citation from independent, reliable sources linking these principles to Parasoft in a notable way would be needed for this to stay in the article and even then, a list likely wouldn't be the way to write it.

The bullets in the technology section aren't needed, that's for ad brochures and power point stuff. Also, terms like "goals" and "helping" are marketing lingo, few if any independent sources would write about a business in this way. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again Gwen. I made some additional modifications. Do you have any other suggestions for improving the objectivity or style? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swtechwr (talk • contribs) 03:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for cleaning things up! I've removed the tag, this is now an encyclopedia article. All I see now are little writing glitches. Going by what I've seen you do on this so far, I glark if you read it through a few more times (when you can spare the time), you'll catch these little bits of wording and meaning worries and fix them. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 03:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way those 6 principles were taken from a textbook (the referenced Automated Defect Prevention book) that was co-authored by the Parasoft CEO. Anyone interested in the methodology details can find them there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swtechwr (talk • contribs) 03:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then I think you can cite the textbook, but you should say it was written by an officer of the company and write about it briefly in straight prose, no list, in a highly neutral way. Oh and the WP:Inline references do need to be cleaned up and made readable but this can be done in time. Also, please sign your talk page posts with 4 tildes (~~~~). Gwen Gale (talk) 03:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen - Thanks for all of your assistance with this. I've learned a lot. I'll give the article a good proof with a fresh mind in a couple days, and tighten up the references as well. Swtechwr (talk) 03:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Use At Google[edit]

It's notable that their debugging software was mentioned on google's original about page [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Family Guy Guy (talk • contribs) 17:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]