Talk:TestPartner
I've gotten some grief about the first iteration of this article being non-neutral and so forth, perhaps due to use of words like "rich" which I've pulled right out of the Microsoft VBA wikipedia article, or by mentioning that it allows users to test more (which comes directly from academic literature on automated testing vis-a-vis manual testing. If you feel this suffers from non-neutral, please point out instances. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pfhjvb0 (talk • contribs) — Pfhjvb0 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. We need some sources besides Compuware's own website: reviews, comparisons, articles, etc. The vendor is seldom a reliable source. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC) Thanks Mike, provided clarification with hidden text in the article that the links on the vendor site are actually independent analyst reports. --pfhjvb0 | Talk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.47.204.253 (talk) 12:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. |
I've gotten some grief about the first iteration of this article being non-neutral and so forth, perhaps due to use of words like "rich" which I've pulled right out of the Microsoft VBA wikipedia article, or by mentioning that it allows users to test more (which comes directly from academic literature on automated testing vis-a-vis manual testing. If you feel this suffers from non-neutral, please point out instances. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pfhjvb0 (talk • contribs) — Pfhjvb0 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- We need some sources besides Compuware's own website: reviews, comparisons, articles, etc. The vendor is seldom a reliable source. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks Mike, provided clarification with hidden text in the article that the links on the vendor site are actually independent analyst reports. --pfhjvb0 | Talk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.47.204.253 (talk) 12:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Sources/References
[edit]The links that I made reference noteworthy industry analyst reports commenting on software quality solutions. The analysts in question (Gartner, Ovum Ltd., etc) do not provide these freely (in other words, they are not freely linked on their website). Rather, these analysts perform industry research and are "though leaders" on a range of topics which companies subscribe to for thousands of dollars per topic. The subscribers then use this information to facilitate research and purchasing/development/methodology/etc decisions regarding software quality solutions (or whatever topic they subscribe to).
Additionally, Gartner, Ovum, and other analysts typically allow the companies being reported on to purchase reprints of their research and analysis, which the purchaser can then make available via their website. This is what has occurred in this case. So, although the links point to the Compuware website, the referenced press releases and associated reprints represent the original, published, and licensed for distribution intellectual property of credible software quality analysts (which are linked via the Compuware website as Compuware has purchased these reports and been licensed to redistribute them). In fact, short of you or I paying thousands of dollars to reprint these reports ourselves, this is the only way to access the analysts' opinions.
Both Gartner and Ovum rank Compuware and Compuware's TestPartner software as a leader in software quality and software testing solutions, which I would argue is a credible and reasonable source for establishing the notability of TestPartner in relation to Wikipedia's criteria. If this is not the case, could you suggest specific examples of what sort of information could be provided to otherwise establish the notability of TestPartner?
In terms of the Compuware TestPartner vs TestPartner conversation, I agree with you that Compuware's website is not consistent.
Pfhjvb0 (talk) 20:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC) pfhjvb0