The draft was rejected again by Wikipedia (Tom's improvement were not yet on
wikipedia). The main reason is notability and reference.
The reviewer left me this additional comment :
"References to blogs and niche online sources do not constitute widespread
So we need better references. I have some from CNET and ZDNET but in french
Le mercredi 10 janvier 2018, 22:56:33 CET Tom Blauwendraat a écrit :
> Yes i left out the references, but i think if we mix my text with your
> references we can be a long way. Lets wait for comments from other
> Op 10 jan. 2018 9:55 PM schreef "Xavier Brochard" <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
> > Your version is very good, far better than mine.
> > 2 things :
> > I would extend OCB explanations but it can be done later.
> > Don't forget to keep some references that are outside OCA (they are
> > required).