	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology 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.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software.

Azure Data Lake[edit]

Currently, the article mentions only Hadoop as a "viable data lake" solution. Azure data lakes are now available (see https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/solutions/data-lake/) ... should they be included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeffFerguson (talk • contribs) 16:01, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is clearly not a solution! See that article and the essay WP:SOLUTION. I would call it more of a marketing buzzword or neologism, but might need a citation. More the better. It looks like you found another company that used the term, so it could be added in an accurate and neutral way, not using marketing-speak but plain English. W Nowicki (talk) 22:05, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removed neutrality warning on criticism section[edit]

Took out old neutrality warning. This seems extremely on point and has references that don't seem to be self-serving. Seemed like a no-brainer to remove so I did. Other opinions welcome! Alex Jackl (talk) 16:33, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

cheekiness?[edit]

"Many companies have now jumped into the data lake, so to speak"

Does this meet wiki standard? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.217.64.23 (talk) 17:51, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think it did - but I couldn't find the exact standard it was breaking besides the fact that it is totally overly casual and doesn't have an encyclopedic tone. Thus I did not remove it.Alex Jackl (talk) 03:06, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just edited it to make it more formal. Feel free to jump in if you have any other thoughts... :-) Alex Jackl (talk) 03:09, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Took out what felt like an advertisement[edit]

Removed the sentence that referred to Cazena as offering a "cloud-based" data lake (as they all do) and that it was "as a service" which they also almost all are. So it felt like a plug rather than being encyclopedic in tone. I did put "Cazena" in the list of vendors in the prior sentence so it would not be excluded. Alex Jackl (talk) 16:49, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Took out another "advertisement-type" line at the end of the example section. It wasn't terrible but it didn't seem to add much value to the article. Alex Jackl (talk) 16:03, 26 September 2018 (UTC) I feel like I have become the advertisement police on this article. :-)[reply]

Some good new edits were added recently but they constantly referenced one product (I have no problem with Hadoop, just the over emphasis) - so I kept the content but de-emphasized the product placement. Happy to be pointed in another direction. Alex Jackl (talk) 17:33, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism edits[edit]

I saw that someone had removed what I perceived to be a reasonable citation (I didn't put it there but it does reference the issue) and then put a citation needed sign which seemed weird to me. So I restored the citation and took the "citations needed" tag off. If I missed something please let me know! Alex Jackl (talk) 14:14, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Subjective edits[edit]

There are a large number of self-published blogs used as references in this article. As such, there have been selective and subjective edits that remove some, but not others even when those citations added value to the article. I suggest this article be purged of these citations to be consistent or those who are selectively editing them to stop doing so. 173.48.113.176 (talk) 01:19, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you have found improperly sourced content, that is a reason to fix that sourcing, not to add more bad sources - so if you would like to find improved sources, have at it. - MrOllie (talk) 02:04, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you not engaging in any substantive discussion on "bad" sources? I asked on your talk page and now here you are saying the same thing. This was opened up for broader discussion given the article is littered with citations that meet your definition of a bad source that demands removal. Unlike you, I would prefer to get a consensus prior to removal. Clearly, some of these citations to blogs have been resident in this article for years yet they persist. Rather than speak in generalities, how about offering constructive input on the matter. You mentioned blogs cant be used as citations, yet a company blog for SAS is the first citation used? So are the blogs used for SAS, Sonra, Equinox, AdRoll, and Blue Granite bad? It appears these are subjective calls given that 100s of edits have occurred yet these bad citations persist. --173.48.113.176 (talk) 13:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]