Talk:IDempiere

NEXT GENERATION or FORK of ADempiere

There are basicaly 2 point of view for the beginning of iDempiere, so the article said claire in the History tab:

"iDempiere can be seen as the next generation of ADempiere or as a fork of the ADempiere Branch GlobalQSS Adempiere361."

In August 2017 two new users delete one point of view with edit summary coments like

"In my opinion, IDempiere is a fork of ADempiere, Is not the next generation"

Assuming good faith (AGF) in their edits, I open this thread, to discuss the dispute and avoid the war of reversals according to wikipedia policies., IMarch.co (talk) 04:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view in the expression can be seen as ... or ..., Palmpilot (talk) 21:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:IDempiere/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: David Eppstein (talk · contribs) 07:34, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

This looks very far from ready for a GA nomination to me.

• The lead is too short and does a poor job of summarizing the rest of the article
• The entire "Features" section is unsourced
  •  Done Palmpilot (talk) 00:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
• Text like "The architecture of the iDempiere system is sophisticated" is both vague and promotional (WP:PEACOCK)
  •  Done Palmpilot (talk) 00:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
• References 1 through 18 are all primary and of dubious reliability. Many other sources appear to be on the system's own Wiki, not acceptable for a reliable source
• The "Awards and Recognition" section looks very promotional
• The entire "Platform" section, most of the "Technology" section, and the entire "Business Processes" section are unsourced
• Phrasing like "The best way to be connected with the community for user, developers and documenters are the wiki, forums and chats like" and "In iDempiere is very simple to create new tables" are both promotional and inappropriately editorial (and in the second case also ungrammatical)
  •  Done Palmpilot (talk) 00:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
• Much of the article consists of bulleted lists instead of well-written prose
  •  DonePalmpilot (talk) 03:47, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

As such I think it meets the "It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria" condition for immediate failure. (Unfortunately, the state of GA reviewing is such that "immediate" means "over two months after you nominated it"...sorry about that.)

I did also run a copyright violation check through Earwig. It found a big overlap with http://www.sts.vn/2016/06/02/idempiere-2/ but I think the copying probably went in the other direction. So I think there isn't a problem there but it probably is worth checking into this more carefully if this is to be brought forward for GA again.

—David Eppstein (talk) 07:34, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

@Palmpilot: You are welcome to use this review as a checklist of things to improve about the article, but please note that the review is nearly two months old and is closed. When you are done with your improvements, if you wish to do so, you are going to need to make a fresh nomination. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:48, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: Yes David I understand and thank you for your help, I regret not having seen the notifications at the time of the review, if I have any questions about your comments I hope you can help me.Palmpilot (talk) 15:29, 30 April 2018 (UTC)