Software: Computing Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

I have so many problems with this article...

• Most of the text of this article seems like a disjointed essay from a business textbook, taken out of context, that uses some sort of businessspeak jargon created specifically for a textbook-e.g., "consumer advantages", "income profits" (what other sorts of profits are there?), "profit margin targets". Basically the entire "Behind the logo" section makes little sense to me - I'm not sure what the original author's intent was, or what sources he consulted to write this. Critics of sponsorship?
• There are zero sources cited. -e.g. " It can be said that corporations sponsor for the interests of themselves and not for the viewer" --it can be said by who? and who is "the viewer"?
• Non neutral POV - lots of 'weasel words' - e.g. "most critics would agree", "It can be said that ", "many would agree is the proof of overcharging"
• Assertations are not backed up by any supporting ideas--e.g., "Sponsorship is also becoming increasingly important in education.", which is followed by text about Forumla One racing, televised events, general sporting events, and then finally by college sporting events. A link between sponsoring of a college sporting and its importance to education is not established. Also, the example about radio stations is redundant-basically a short summary of the sustaining program entry- and its relevance as an alternative/contrast to (advertising) sponsorship is not established.
• I am not entirely convinced that 'sponsor' needs an encyclopedia entry in the first place--it seems that a dictionary entry would suffice. I have already removed the etymology that a previous author included.

I'm a new to contributing to wikipedia, so I'll have to read up on what to do to fix this, but I think this article needs massive editing.Aplasman 05:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]