Talk:Grammarly

Clean up of promotional edits
As many of you know, this article about grammarly has a lot of promotional edits done to it, and it still sounds like an advert, may I ask all editors involved in the editing of this article, to help fix it, so it doesn't sound like an advert, and for those who are doing promotional editing, I ask you to stop, because Wikipedia is not a a site for making adverts, so who's in ? 96.230.240.122 (talk) 21:57, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Anon, could you could say more about what you think makes the article sound promotional? Editors above have talked about including the price and how that may be seen as promotional, and they seem to have come to a compromise. What parts of the article do you still have problems with? What kind of information do you think the article should contain and do you know of sources which could help us improve the article? — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:47, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I've gone through the article; there was only a phrase or two that felt promotional, which I fixed. I think the article is pretty neutral now, though it might need some expansion. -- Beland (talk) 01:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Product
Isn't this article about the company, and not the product. If so, why is 60% of the content on the article about the product? 108.7.222.250 (talk) 13:50, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It's about both. The company has little notability beyond the product. --Hipal (talk) 16:43, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * thanks for clearing that up :) 108.7.222.250 (talk) 18:22, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Which languages this product fix?
Article no say Grammarly product fix grammar for which languages. Trinhhoa (talk) 02:38, 12 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Hey Trinhhoa, you are welcome to add the information yourself if you want to. Just try not to say it in a promotional way. GameTriangle  (talk) 00:08, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If you work from reliable, independent sources, you shouldn't go far wrong. WP:RSP and WP:RSN are helpful in determining if a source is reliable. --Hipal (talk) 01:48, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The infobox says it's available in English only. -- Beland (talk) 01:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Trying to Clean Up and Add
Hello, everyone. I'm new to Wiki editing, but I am trying to add some more information to this article, like a section for what the product actually does and where it can be used. I am being careful not to make it seem promotional, but it is very hard to find information on Grammarly that isn't either the Grammarly website itself or this wiki page. Hopefully pointing out what the product actually does doesn't come across as promotional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CatamountMG (talk • contribs) 15:39, 22 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Out of curiosity, what was your rational for deleting all of the references? Some of them were arguably excessive, but in my mind excessive citations are better than no citations at all. Foxbud (talk) 20:00, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I've reverted it. The edit summary misrepresented the edit, the edit was so large that it's unclear what was changed, and most of the references were removed.
 * Please work in small edits with clear edit summaries.
 * Do not remove references without indicating you are doing so, and with some indication as to why.
 * This article has a very problematic history. Before editing it, would be best if editors were extremely familiar with WP:NOT, WP:POV, and all related policies/guidelines. --Hipal (talk) 21:02, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Disagreement Regarding New Content
On February 23, Samantha Sandisk introduced changes that Hipal and I reverted per WP:SOAP and WP:N. On March 3, Samantha reintroduced these changes without an edit summary explaining why the mentioned Wikipedia policies do not apply to the changes. Samantha, could you please clarify your reasoning? Foxbud (talk) 16:43, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and reverted the edits. Thanks for starting this discussion. As Samantha Sandisk has yet to respond to any of the notices on her talk page, I don't expect to see a response here. Looks like a UPE account that needs to be blocked. --Hipal (talk) 17:14, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

fact check: Ukrainian?
although they clearly support Ukraine against Russia's invasion (as, in my humble opinion, they should), I am not sure if attributing the company as "Ukrainian American" is legitimate. That attribution was just "American" not long before the open warfare started, if the page history is anything to go by. Could someone check on this? I don't have time to investigate this thoroughly at the moment due to an essay I'm writing (which is why I was originally looking up Grammarly)--Macks2008 (talk) 06:01, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It's actually gone back and forth, even before the invasion. None of the three nearest citations near the claim seemed to support it, but I did find one that at least states that the original founders of Grammarly are Ukrainian (which I've added as a citation). That said, it still might be misleading to attribute the entire company as "Ukrainian American-Headquartered." Foxbud (talk) 13:27, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I have removed this claim from the first sentence. The rest of the intro clarifies the HQ is in the U.S. and the founders were from Ukraine. -- Beland (talk) 01:35, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe the phrasing "Ukraine-founded American-headquartered" would be optimal, since the company itself claims to be "Ukraine-founded and built" and says Ukraine is "where our company was founded". At the same time, they don't quite assert to be an American but rather a "global" (as one does) company . So, I think, the proposed phrasing accurately conveys facts, while also reflecting the company's own perspective regarding the matter. Steffuld (talk) 15:14, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Style of English Used
After reading MOS:STYLEVAR, I propose that Grammarly's style of English be American English. Why? Because its headquarters are in the United States, and MOS:TIES says that "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the [...] English of that nation". Should we make the change? -- 27 is my favorite number. You can ask me why here. 15:56, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * FTR, the invisible template has since been updated to indicate American English. -- Beland (talk) 01:40, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Removed for discussion: Funding section
"In May 2017, the company raised $110 million in its first round of funding from General Catalyst, IVP, and Spark Capital. In October 2019, the company raised $90 million during the second round of funding, at a valuation of more than $1 billion. In November 2021, the company raised $200 million, led by Baillie Gifford and funds managed by BlackRock, to continue its investment in its artificial intelligence technology and expand hiring."

I've moved this section here as it looks like WP:PROMO and WP:NOTNEWS. --Hipal (talk) 03:17, 25 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I'd tend to agree that this section isn't especially noteworthy and feels promotional. Foxbud (talk) 14:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Security: on Grammarly's Fix for Vulnerability
This is regarding the security section that has had some contested edits as of late. In particular, the change from: "A few hours after being notified of the vulnerability, Grammarly released an update to fix the issue, which the Google researcher described as 'a really impressive response time.'" into: "After being notified of the vulnerability a few hours later Grammarly released a hot fix." I disagree with the claim that the former edit contains redundant information. I would argue that the fact that the Google researcher specifically stated Grammarly's turnaround for the hotfix was "a really impressive response time." suggests that most companies Google deals with usually take a much longer time to release security updates. This fast turnaround time strikes me as relevant and notable information, as it shows that Grammarly displayed an atypical sense of urgency in correcting a critical security vulnerability.

Since there seems to be some amount of disagreement over these edits, I wanted to create this talk section so we could reach consensus. What are people's thoughts on this (in particular: Praxidicae & Alexander Davronov)? Foxbud (talk) 16:21, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It's enough to state a mere fact that the bug was fixed quickly. Otherwise, such statement needs to meet WP:GNG i.e. have many sources stating that that specific researcher's opinion was really notable. See also WP:NOTOPINION of WP:SOAPBOX. AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 11:52, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That's fair. Looking through a somewhat arbitrary selection of articles on the vulnerability, some incidentally mention the researcher's "really impressive response time" quote, but I wouldn't say that any assign special significance to it. Maybe my argument for keeping it veers into WP:NOR territory. Foxbud (talk) 17:26, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think your argue is genuinely coherent, but I don't agree with so much things you said. 177.105.90.44 (talk) 17:45, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @177.105.90.44: I'm not entirely sure what you mean. Do you disagree with my original argument for keeping this content, Alexander Davronov's argument for removing it, or my follow up comment agreeing with Alexander Davronov? Foxbud (talk) 16:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

History: Browser Extension "Beta Version"
The paragraph in history that mentions a security vulnerability in the browser extension currently says the extension was in a "beta version." I can't seem to find any mention of it being a beta version in the provided sources.

@Myuno, it looks like you introduced this change here. Would you mind clarifying where you found this information? It's possible I'm misunderstanding the information presented in the cited project-zero bug report. Foxbud (talk) 17:34, 25 May 2024 (UTC)