Talk:Fizy

Article issues

I have edited the article, removed the advert-like parts. So please remove speedy deletion tag on the page. As the author of the page I cannot. Bekiroflaz (talk) 17:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

It has bigger problems than being advert-like. For example, there isn't yet a single reference. See Referencing for beginners. I won't delete immediately, but someone else might. --SPhilbrickT 18:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The article is still unbalanced and does not read like an encyclopedia at all. Sorry, but unless the article is re-written like a proper article I will still leave it to an Administrator to decide. Thanks. Jack (talk) 20:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I have made a few edits, but could not find sources for the information on the article. Isn't it enough to not to be deleted? Bekiroflaz (talk) 17:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Spam or not

All information on Wikipedia needs to be well referenced, or it cannot be used. I will give you time, BUT the article still reads like advertising and needs to be improved. Jack (talk) 09:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Everything in this article is now referenced. Even before you added the advert tag, I saw nothing spammy about this revision. What is non-neutral about the article? Goodvac (talk) 09:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The 'Foundation' section, while referenced, reads like and advert or a story, rather than an encyclopedic entry, the Features section is not balanced and there is no mention of any negative points. But you have improved the introduction to the article to an acceptable standard Jack (talk) 13:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand what an advert is. Perhaps Wikipedia:Spam might be an enlightening read. The foundation section is exactly what the section header says: how the website was founded. Whether or not it reads like a story is irrelevant. The features section is not meant to say what the service cannot do—it's for what the website can do. I will be removing {{advert}} shortly. Goodvac (talk) 00:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not alleging that it needs to say what it cannot do, but it does read like an advert (it does nothing but promote Fizy and that IS an advert). And Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is not meant to read like the "our story" section of a corporate website. I am not saying that the article needs to be hypercritical, just balanced and encyclopedic. Jack (talk) 12:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Reading like a story does not mean that the article is promoting Fizy. I see no peacock words, and this matches nothing in WP:NOTADVERTISING (#5). I have filed for a third opinion. Goodvac (talk) 22:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Third opinion This revision is not written like an advert [1]. However the external links section "news" is overdone - and looks vaguely spammy. (ie advert) I suggest either to remove a lot, or if any are suitable for references use them as such.

offtopic the sections are too many and too short -eg "ownership" - recommend merge into a "company history" section - don't need a section heading for a single sentence. Any further question please ask.Sf5xeplus (talk) 23:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Sf5xeplus, for your input. I was planning to integrate those news articles into the body as citations but never got around to doing it. I will remove them for now. Goodvac (talk) 23:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Can I remove {{advert}} now? Goodvac (talk) 23:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I will - - note the on the google buyout - -good practice is always add dates.Sf5xeplus (talk) 23:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll clarify that. Goodvac (talk) 23:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I now agree that, following heavy editing, the article is no longer advertisement-like. I'll leave you to fix the other issues. Good luck! Jack (talk) 13:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)