![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 10 June 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
I wrote this article, but I do not work for, have never worked for and have no personal or professional relationship with SlickEdit, Inc. or any of its employees. My only affiliation is that I own a very old copy of the product. It's just a great editor and I shocked to find that Wikipedia didn't have an article on it. Please let me know what you beleive to be "ad-like" about the article and I'll modify it. I hate "advertisement" articles myself. — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I certainly think it's notable enough—if EditPlus can have an article, this one certainly can (the EditPlus article compares itself to SlickEdit). Also, at work when it was announced that SlickEdit was going to be our editor for our new platform, all the programmers cheered (no one up to that point had been able to use it at work, so it must've gotten a reputation somehow). I just read on article on it which did have some criticisms, but since it is not online, I can't cite it. I could just like some personal criticisms, but that would be original research. I'll look around the places you suggest, however. — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I added the criticism that I read and cited it according to APA standards. Can I take the cleanup tag off now? — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, if you don't like this article, don't look at EditPlus, it reads much more like an ad than this one. The APA standard is just a standard for citing sources; sorry, didn't mean to be cryptic. I don't think Wikipedia has a standard for citing sources, I just picked a popular one.
I'm going to have to ask for some clarifications. I tried to discuss the features in a NPOV manner, just the facts. If you could point out what bothers you, I'll work on revising it. The article also said a lot of positive stuff, but I didn't want to cite it again, for fear of making it sound even more like an ad.
I've re-read the article again, and, to my eyes, it looks NPOV. It doesn't use gushing adjectives, like "incredible," "beautiful" and "marvelous." It really just states the facts. The only exception I can find is the use of "strongest," but I think it's use there is justified. The only weasel word I can find is in the criticism section, but I cite a source right afterwards, making it a non-issue. Please, point out what bothers you so I can remove the tag. Thx. — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, I made some further edits and removed the ad template. I can't say I'm seeing much ad-like content at this point. -- Northgrove 09:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I find this article really addy too. The fact that the talk page starts with 'this is not an ad, really' shows I'm not the only person to think this. Phrases like 'SlickEdit's programmers found a way to overcome these limitations' are not very objective. For example, state what the way was. 'SlickEdit used ...', with some specific technique, and a link to that technique. The whole 'criticisms' section is bogus. It's like the cliche job interview line '"What do you see as your weak points?" "Oh, I'm a bit of a perfectionist".... Anonymous, 29 July 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.114.47.68 ( talk) 17:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)