Draft talk:Real Story Group

Note: I previously worked for Real Story Group. I’m contributing neutrally and using independent sources.

It seemed odd that this page wouldn't exist, it's referenced 23 times and turns up in some discussion elsewhere. It's surprisingly hard to find an outsider description for it outside of (a lot of) blog posts though. Had to make do with those.Therealpowerflower (talk) 15:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

that is the main problem. Check this pout. wp:rs see if that helps. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

yeah, read that one through before even trying. I thought I'd start at a relatively easy omission in the content management realm instead of just diving straight into the content management, content management system, etcetera mess... Anyway, I'm now digging for better sources. There are a *lot* of references to CMS Watch on the web. Therealpowerflower (talk) 15:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Awesome if you'd like help I'd be happy to if you have questions. good luck. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

OK so I've gone through a bunch of Google results to find something -- 84,600 hits for "cms watch"! -- but nothing from a major news source. Of course this company is very specialized so that makes it difficult, but it's very well known. Almost any CMS website links to it. How do I go about proving the notability? Is there a way to do that when there's only "second rate" sources, but there's a huge amount of those? Add a zillion references? ;) Thx for your help. Therealpowerflower (talk) 16:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

a reliable source can be small town newspapers too. Anything that isn't anm advertisment or blog etc. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

well, in our business everything is online... so cmswire and fiercecontentemanagement are the kind of sources you'd find (and well-read). They're more on-line publishers than blogs. Would a reference to Computer Weekly http://www.computerweekly.com/Home/tags/cms-watch.htm be better? Or AIIM? CMS Watch have also published in KMWorld, Intelligent Enterprise, and there's a bunch of quotes of CMS Watch analysts in other news sites. Should I add those as references?Therealpowerflower (talk) 16:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

add them, if they are are good it will be noted byt the reviewing admin. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

ok, thanks, I've cleaned it up a bit and added two more that should be more "notable". Looking for more, it's more a matter of which to pick (there's so many). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Therealpowerflower (talk • contribs) 17:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Works for me the references look ok. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Rejected because of LLM usage

@Pythoncoder the LLM was only used to generate the refs -- not to source them and not to write the article text. Therealpowerflower (talk) 17:29, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

That doesn't make it any better. LLMs frequently fabricate references and make formatting errors. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 20:55, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

As mentioned, the LLM didn’t come up with the references. Just the markup. And yes, I then had to correct the syntax on half of them, so not doing it again. Meanwhile, please appreciate a fair bit of research and work went into getting this article up to Wikipedia standards, and I’ve been maintaining it since 2009. It being summarily rejected for suspected LLM use based on a cursory review is rather disparaging. Therealpowerflower (talk) 11:09, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Complete rewrite

Rewritten the article from the ground up according to Wikipedia standards. Therealpowerflower (talk) 15:46, 6 November 2025 (UTC)