Talk:Pam-Crash

Overpromotional

There are some problems with the article

1. According to our MOS, we normalize capitalization in tradenames and acronyms that can be pronounced as words: so the title of the article should be Pam-crash, or, perhaps Pam-Crash.
2. The product name is used excessively : after the first introduction , it should by "the program" , "the software" , or "it"
3. there's too much jargon: " provide consumers with a realistic and independent assessment "

DGG ( talk ) 03:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

DGG, I realize that this fits the bare minimum for an article, and needs to be rewritten. Hopefully, Micheal will be willing to do so. I think I was impressed with the sourcing placed in a newly written article, and that is why I gave it a pass. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 15:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Reasonable enough, but so far there's been no further work on the article. DGG ( talk ) 19:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I will revise the article ASAP. I was waiting for feedback on the revisions I made to my PixelMEDIA article before I did this one. I posted a message at your Talk page but didn't hear anything yet. But I can, and will, do it ASAP. Sorry for the delay.Michael Leeman (talk) 19:26, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I revised the article per the above comments and made some additional changes as well. I also removed a backlink (per a comment from DGG on my Talk page) to this article that was in the "Crash Simulation" article. Please let me know if this looks okay. Please also note that I was unable to change the article's title to "Pam-Crash". If someone could please inform me as to how I can go about changing the title, I would be be grateful. Thanks!Michael Leeman (talk) 16:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I changed the title--it is done by moving the article to the desired title. But re-reading it, I see some more general problems. The bulk of the article is not about the program, but two particular applications, summarized in each case from a technical article on the application. They're relevant applications; they're a useful illustration of the function of the software. But they're in more detail than is appropriate. Possibly you condense them to one half the size emphasizing what the software did, not the ultimate engineering success of the design. ? DGG ( talk ) 06:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I will revise the article ASAP. Thank you for your feedback. It is greatly appreciated!Michael Leeman (talk) 23:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I made some revisions, per DGG's comments above. Specifically, I shortened the application descriptions and put each application in a separate paragraph (previously, there were two applications in each paragraph, which I think made them seem too long).Michael Leeman (talk) 20:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The article is still a wreck

This article is still a wreck - pun intended. Statements such as "Version 2G, introduced in 2002.... " do not an encyclopedia make. It still reads like a product spec sheet. I would delete at least 50% to make it more encyclopedic, and less promotional. History2007 (talk) 20:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I will go through the article ASAP and revise it per your comments.Michael Leeman (talk) 20:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I made some changes/deletions to the article. Please let me know if my revisions have adequately addressed your comments. Thanks!Michael Leeman (talk) 19:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)