Talk:Pixel Press
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Sergecross73 in topic Sources to be integrated in the article
Sources to be integrated in the article edit
I figured I'd remove this section from the article, but haven't really worked through it. There are a lot of sources here and hopefully, some can be incorporated in the article in a more natural way.
"The company and its products, most notably Bloxels, have been featured in media outlets that include Forbes,[1] USA Today,[2] Popular Science,[3] Fast Company,[4] and Venture Beat.[5]"
~Mable (chat) 17:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Accusations of paid editing and conflict of interest aside, which have been addressed on my talk page and the proper notification board, I am not associated in any way with Pixel Press. Now on to the content. The information you reference above was done so as I read the notability guidelines that talks about reliable sources. I put those in the opening of the first paragraph in order to show that they have received coverage from reliable sources. If you do not think they are needed in the opening, or anywhere in the article, to show they are notable, then there is really no reason to have them and should be removed. I am trying my best as a new editor based on examples I see and guidelines that are written, but any advice is appreciated. --Bathchurnning (talk) 19:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- The lead doesn't need to make such a direct statement of notability. Simply using the sources themselves for article content will establish notability as far as WP:N is concerned, so it doesn't need to be called out in prose. I would suggest using those articles as sources for other statements throughout the article. -- ferret (talk) 19:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- If that's the case, then better to leave them out. It didn't look good to me when I finished it, but thought best to put them there to help show notability. There are plenty of sources, but wanted to show as many of them as possible. I am also removing the conflict of interest tag from the article as I addressed the accusations of conflict and any issues with the article can certainly be discussed here on the talk page. --Bathchurnning (talk) 23:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Well, no, Ferret is correct, it would be better if they were integrated into the article, but in a more constructive way that actually sources content about the subject, rather than just saying "Source X featured Pixel Press". Sergecross73 msg me 14:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- If that's the case, then better to leave them out. It didn't look good to me when I finished it, but thought best to put them there to help show notability. There are plenty of sources, but wanted to show as many of them as possible. I am also removing the conflict of interest tag from the article as I addressed the accusations of conflict and any issues with the article can certainly be discussed here on the talk page. --Bathchurnning (talk) 23:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
References
- ^ Perlut, Aaron (7 May 2013). "Pixel Press May Provide Brands with Inexpensive, Customizable Gaming Extensions". Forbes. Retrieved 6 August 2015.
- ^ Gudmundsen, Jinny (2 March 2015). "10 cool tech toys coming in 2015". USA Today. Retrieved 6 August 2015.
- ^ "The 10 Best Gadgets and Gizmos We Saw at Toy Fair 2015". Popular Science. 17 February 2015. Retrieved 6 August 2015.
- ^ "Draw Your Own Mario Game With This Kickstarter App". Fast Company. Retrieved 6 August 2015.
- ^ Sosnik, Esteban (21 November 2014). "The future of homework is...video games". Venture Beat. Retrieved 6 August 2015.