10 ms·

Here's the link to the draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Apache_Arrow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Apache_Arrow And some possible additional s

Here's the link to the draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Apache_Arrow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Apache_Arrow And some possible additional sources: * https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2019/09/24/dremio-helps-reduce-proximity-to-your-data/amp/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2019/09/24/dr... * https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20180906005114/en https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20180906005114/en * https://thesiliconreview.com/2016/02/apache-arrow-is-the-new-open-source-project-for-big-data https://thesiliconreview.com/2016/02/apache-arrow-is-the-new...

tptacek 7y ago
The first article is a paid promotion piece, which WP won't accept as an RS. The second is a press release by Arrow's sponsoring company, which, obviously, WP won't accept as an RS. I have no idea what "The Silicon Review" is; this is the first time I've ever seen it. To the extent it's not a pay-to-play trade publication, it might qualify as a notability-establishing source. The fact that the "Review" does not itself have a WP page might make it harder to claim it's reliable, since it suggests nobody else knows what it is, either.
- Ninjaneered 7y ago
  Looks like my lateral reading was sub-par (actually I didn't even try, just a quick Google/post). The "Silicon Review" one looks like a pay-to-play as well after further review, it's used in citation on a few other Wikipedia articles, but as far as I can tell, and due to some anecdotal stories, it doesn't look good. * https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicRelations/comments/bha6hs/silicon_review_emailed_me_about_an_offer_to/ https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicRelations/comments/bha6hs/sil... * https://arpr.com/blog/4-pay-for-play-scams/ https://arpr.com/blog/4-pay-for-play-scams/ Good catch, thanks for spending the time to review my links. Reading your comments above, I largely agree. It's a high bar (mostly) to get an article on Wikipedia, and that's a good thing. It allows us to read the majority of content on Wikipedia without too much suspicion.
SquishyPanda23 7y ago
I read the draft. Maybe this is an unpopular opinion, but it's obvious advertising and has no place on Wikipedia. Maybe a Medium post would be more appropriate. Wikipedia already has a problem with bad software articles like this.
- JohnFen 7y ago
  I mostly agree. It is distinctly marketing-flavored, although not to a degree that I think should disqualify it alone. What I think should disqualify it is that it's missing a lot of detail that would make the entry genuinely useful. As it is, it's as useful as a press release. Also, it does appear to have a problem with appropriate references. Generally speaking, I have a hard time disagreeing with the reasons listed on that page for the rejections.

tptacek 7y ago

The first article is a paid promotion piece, which WP won't accept as an RS. The second is a press release by Arrow's sponsoring company, which, obviously, WP won't accept as an RS. I have no idea what "The Silicon Review" is; this is the first time I've ever seen it. To the extent it's not a pay-to-play trade publication, it might qualify as a notability-establishing source. The fact that the "Review" does not itself have a WP page might make it harder to claim it's reliable, since it suggests nobody else knows what it is, either.

Ninjaneered 7y ago
Looks like my lateral reading was sub-par (actually I didn't even try, just a quick Google/post). The "Silicon Review" one looks like a pay-to-play as well after further review, it's used in citation on a few other Wikipedia articles, but as far as I can tell, and due to some anecdotal stories, it doesn't look good. * https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicRelations/comments/bha6hs/silicon_review_emailed_me_about_an_offer_to/ https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicRelations/comments/bha6hs/sil... * https://arpr.com/blog/4-pay-for-play-scams/ https://arpr.com/blog/4-pay-for-play-scams/ Good catch, thanks for spending the time to review my links. Reading your comments above, I largely agree. It's a high bar (mostly) to get an article on Wikipedia, and that's a good thing. It allows us to read the majority of content on Wikipedia without too much suspicion.

SquishyPanda23 7y ago

I read the draft. Maybe this is an unpopular opinion, but it's obvious advertising and has no place on Wikipedia. Maybe a Medium post would be more appropriate. Wikipedia already has a problem with bad software articles like this.

JohnFen 7y ago
I mostly agree. It is distinctly marketing-flavored, although not to a degree that I think should disqualify it alone. What I think should disqualify it is that it's missing a lot of detail that would make the entry genuinely useful. As it is, it's as useful as a press release. Also, it does appear to have a problem with appropriate references. Generally speaking, I have a hard time disagreeing with the reasons listed on that page for the rejections.