Talk:Sterling Ledet & Associates/Archive 1

Archive 1

Verifiable information

Hi Absolut Dan,

I tried hard to comply with third party, point of view. Everything is externally verifiable.

Why do you think the page reads like an advert?

Do you have any suggestions as to how I can better comply with WikiPedia guidelines?

From the reference you added:

Articles about companies and products are acceptable if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are not likely to be acceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they can serve to identify major corporations associated with a topic (see finishing school for an example).

Or do you simply think that there's no way the company can qualify for an entry on Wikipedia, no matter what it says? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sjledet (talk • contribs) 12:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I tagged the article as an advertisement because frankly I think it sounds like one. If someone read the article aloud to me, I would think he was reading an advertisement block from a newspaper or magazine, not a Wikipedia article. Part of the problem is that the article is so short, so there's nothing to balance the wording that sounds advertisement-like. To improve the article, try finding reliable sources that write about the company, include in the article things about the company that can be learned from that source or sources, and then cite it. Without sources, content here is just opinion and subject to challenge.

I also think this company is borderline-notable - I'm not convinced that it passes the notability guidelines for companies (WP:CORP). You might want to review those guidelines and help the article out as needed.

I am re-tagging the article as an advert as the text hasn't changed. If you can rewrite it from a neutral point of view, feel free to then remove the tag again --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 13:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help and your politeness in your offer to feel free to remove the advert tag. I think I'll wait until we've reached consensus that it doesn't belong there, as I am not convinced the article is right yet either. Once we both agree it should be gone, then I'll edit it out or you can.

In addition to making some changes, I did find the following reliable sources that I think may help the company qualify under the notabuility guidelines at (WP:CORP).

http://www.adobe.com/products/indesign/pdfs/innovata_ss.pdf

http://www.adobe.com/products/aftereffects/pdfs/weatherc.pdf

http://www.acfug.org/index.cfm?fa=meetings.meetingdetail&EventID=78

http://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/stories/2004/03/22/smallb2.html

http://www.highbeam.com/library/docFree.asp?DOCID=1G1:120103412 (which is a press release from Quark, not from Sterling Ledet & Associates, Inc.)

http://graphicdesign.about.com/library/news/blnews1199.htm (which mentions the training center operated for Apple Computer)

http://www.indesignusergroup.com/chapters/atlanta/notes/2005/04_18/04_18_notes.php

Any further assistance or suggestions you (or others) might make is appreciated.

I think those links are a good starting point. The best thing you could do at this point is add content to the article that can be learned from reading those links, and then add the link as a citation following WP:CITE guidelines.

If you can find more neutral material to say about the company from those links, I think we can then work on culling out the advert-type stuff --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 00:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

What do you think of it now? Sjledet 03:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

It looks much better now. I've just put some final touches on it. I think it's starting to look like a real article. However the company itself may still be questionably notable. It meets my criteria, but others may not agree. If anything else is needed I'd say it could use some work to expand the article some by finding and citing other reliable sources (the bigger the better) that talk about the company. Great work though! --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 04:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all the help getting started. Even though I'm a newbie at this, I feel like I've already learned a lot. I'm sure I'll expand the entry in the future. Are we in agreement that the advert tag can go now?

I did find some other primary sources such as http://www.pdfzone.com/article2/0,1895,1757767,00.asp but I'm wondering if aactually listing the software products trained on by the company would help or hurt in your opionion? Sjledet 04:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. Yes I think the tag can go. I think listing the products might be a bit over the top. Assuming they're listed somewhere on the company's official website, readers can always go there for more info. The kind of info this article could is is info that helps establish it's notability, not necessarily more about what it does. I hope that makes sense --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 04:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:SJL-Logo.gif

Image:SJL-Logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)