Talk:GMS (software)

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

Software: Computing Low‑importance

	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.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Geology Low‑importance

	Geology portal Talk:GMS (software) is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

Nihonjoe (talk · contribs) This user has declared a connection.

Suggestion for article expansion

Would it be helpful for this article to include a list or section that cites papers/research that have used GMS? It would be helpful to have a section that explains how the software has been used and what kind of projects it gets used for. 42of8 (talk) 17:19, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aquaveo has recently added a list of publications that refer to GMS. This list only includes articles that were deemed substantial - there are many more articles that refer to GMS. You could probably find more using Google Scholar. As for putting the list on the wiki page, I don't know if that would be a good idea or not, but I do think the article needs more citations. Unjedai (talk) 20:38, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"customer testimonies"

I don't think customer reviews violate WP:NOTADVERT. As long as they are not on the developer's website, they seem to be "verifiable with independent, third-party sources". The {{advert|section|customer testimonies}} doesn't occur elsewhere on Wikipedia and there is no dedicated template. I only think the WP:NOTCHANGELOG section is primary and promotional. I couldn't Google reviews about the software, but the other article survived AfD.

Users are likely the only sources for reception, and a reception section is generally desired. While independent reviewers are ideal, the reliability of US government sources isn't bad. The COI ArbCom case did not find UPE here.

I thought of removing the WP:PEACOCK words but then the section would be a description not reception section. Merging the history and reception section here could be an option here, but would be difficult for SMS (hydrology software) § Examples of SMS Implementation. How should we improve these articles? 142.113.140.146 (talk) 19:00, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]