MODx Wikipedia article

Every once in a while, I take stroll down Wikipedia lane. This morning I came across the article for MODx (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MODx_(software)) and saw that it had been labeled with the horrible "This article or section is not written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article...", and so forth.

It sure is a shame that such a great framework such as MODx can’t have a decent article on Wikipedia (at least, according to someone who labeled the article that way).

I’m no good editor of such articles, especially not when it comes to MODx since I’m still considering myself to be horribly "noobishly". So I’m hoping that anyone here in the forums would like jiffy up the article so that it better represents one of the greatest CMS/frameworks the world has seen.

Good point !
It so happens that I have something handy that should make WikiPedia’s editor happier And update things regarding the new releases.

I’ll take care of this this week thanks for the reminder.
I did it for the french page but not the english one (oops).

Great to hear!

I took a quick check today and it seems that not much has happened with the article, apart from the message being changed at the top. It now says that the article should be deleted, that can’t be good.

Indeed, especially since *many* people go to Wikipedia to get a bit of non-hyped background info before they commit themselves to one CMS or the other. I know I do...

As do I. Opensourcecms.com never really did it for me.

The article was revised and, up until a few days ago, met Wikipedia’s standards except for tone. From what I can gather, Wikipedia user Jackaranga noticed the tone had not been revised for some time and marked it for deletion. Incidentally, the Etomite article (linked from ours for historical purposes) has been marked for deletion as well by the same user.

Thanks for the heads up Mark... I have read the conditions to meet to revise it properly but it would seem the major "problem" here is to find "reliable secondary sources" that are "independent" according to wikipedia...

Thing I find strange is, lots of CMS (if not all except those who have books published) would not make it according to those guidelines
Now the thing is, find those independent / reliable secondary sources, any rewriting will not matter if we don’t have those...

Does someone have this handy or do I start a thread prompting MODx user to report resources they have found accross the web for MODx ?

Would these be the kind of sources that are required?

Protolize.org - Reviews for MODx
ModX Review - Circle Six Blog
Needforcontent.com - MODx review
Ajaxian » MODx CMS - An Ajax/PHP Content System

They are however just reviews that I found through a quick Google search.

After reading the article that is there, It is fairly obvious that it is written like a marketing piece. It doesn’t sound like an objective or factual listing of features but a somewhat promotionally slanted love fest.

The first thing is that the reader at Wikipedia isn’t looking to be convinced to use MODx they want to know about it. The things that should be included are what it is, what it does, what it compares to, who its key founders are/were, links to 3rd party articles about MODx and especially ones from someone or some organization with some credibility of objectivity or expertise. The Ajaxian article seems like a start.

Don’t write the entry like a fan or a parent write it like a police report. "Just the facts m’am."