Draft talk:QualCoder

Decline of the draft

I would like to justify why the draft should be accepted.

Firstly, when assessing the article, it should be taken into account the nature of the subject. As we talk about CAQDAS software, it is rather natural that most of in-depth sources are related to the software websites, blogs, manuals, etc. So, they have not secondary character. In turn, most secondary, independent sources are the journal papers which applied the specific software. However, they are quite dispersed. In other words, most independent and secondary sources relatively shortly describe software and mainly apply them in research.

Secondly, acceptance of the QualCoder article is justified by the character and sources of the already accepted articles on Wikipedia. I done some work and analysed articles on the three of the most famous commercial CAQDAS: Maxqda, NVivo and Atlas.ti. Sources to the articles are as follow:

Maxqda:

Total number of references: 7 (1 in literature section, withour reference to specific fragment).

Number of NOT independent references (product website): 4

Notes: first paragraph without ANY reference

Number of in-depth independent references: 1

Number of short independent references: 2

NVivo:

Total number of references: 8

Number of NOT independent references (product website, articles of software developers): 4

Not-working links: 2

Notes: second paragraph without ANY reference

Number of in-depth independent references: 0 (!)

Number of short independent references: 2

Atlas.ti:

Total number of references: 17

Number of NOT independent references (product website, articles of software developers): 12

Not-working links: 1

Notes: first paragraph withour ANY reference, the whole second section without ANY reference

Number of in-depth independent references: 2

Number of short independent references: 1

References withour mentioning the subject: 1

QualCoder (this draft):

Total number of references: 21

Number of NOT independent references (software website): 2

Number of in-depth independent references: 2 (I added one recently)

Number of short independent references: 14

To sum up, comparing three already accepted articles of most famous, commercial CAQDAS, and the draft, it is worth to stress that:

- the draft has the smallest number of dependent references (2 vs. 4, 4 and 12)

- the draft has the higher number of independent short references (14 vs. 2, 2 and 1), including also at elast 7 peer-reviewed articles, sometimes with high impact factor.

- the draft has 2 independent in-depth references, while existing articles has 2, 1 or even not at all.

This relatively good support of indepednent sources results from the fact that, as I am a PhD student, I conducted systematic literature review on this software package, including all sources from Google Scholar, as well as general Google sources. The number of in-depth independent sources is 2, however, it is not low number, taking into account nature of the subject and existing Wikipedia aritcles. However, number of shorter sources is exeptionally high, as well as number of developer-related sources is reduced to the minimum, what cannot be said about existing Wikipedia articles in this field.

To sum up, the draft provide holistic and reliable overview of the subject by providing indpendent, in-depth, as well as shorter but very reliable and diversified sources. In this way, contrary to the three already accepted articles, it provides not only good overview of the software, but also in-depth insight into actual use of the software (empirical journal articles), recommended use of it (methodological journal articles), and educational use (libraries sites).

In fact, the draft not only meets the existing level of the Wikipedia articles in this field, is relatevely exemptionally and can serve as an example of good practices of articles grounded in diversified, reliable, and independent sources. AndrzejSN (talk) 20:04, 10 July 2022 (UTC)