Talk:SlickEdit

Really, it's not an ad
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. &mdash; Frecklefoot | Talk 19:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It reads "ad-like", or perhaps like a description on the box, because it merely lists features. I don't think that's what a proper WP article on a software package should look like. I would also check WP notability standards to check whether SlickEdit qualifies (not all software does, otherwise we would have articles on every application one can think of). Check out software-related FAs and GAs for examples of how good articles can look like. Also check out with WikiProject Computing for possible guidelines on that. You might want to join the project or ask for assistance with this article on their talk page. I am sorry I won't be of too much assistance, as I do not edit articles in this field. Bravada, talk - 19:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I certainly think it's notable enough&mdash;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. &mdash; 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? &mdash; Frecklefoot | Talk 18:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not sure what APA standards are, could you specify? Moreover, it is still an article that reads like a feature list with some weasel words and a quotation from somebody at the end. Bravada, talk - 19:07, 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. &mdash; Frecklefoot | Talk 19:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have never seen the EditPlus article before and I do not compare this article to it (if you believe it is an inappropriate article, correct it!), but e.g. to Mozilla FireFox, which is a featured article. Perhaps it's not as much an advertisement as a feature list + a quotation out of the blue. This article consists of skimpy prose listing some features and lenghty bullet lists. I guess you can skip the description of detailed features completely, as they are only interesting for specialists, and this is not where one should come searching for that (add an external link if you want). It should explain to the average layman that comes here what it is, why is it notable and perhaps contain details that one CANNOT find on the box or in magazine reviews, like history, naming origin, influence etc. Again, browse through software GAs and FAs, ask at the WikiProject for advice. It is generally not easy to write an encyclopedic article about a software package, or any product for that matter.
 * PS. For citing, we use Citation templates - I am not sure whether they display in APA or not.

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)


 * Hello guys,
 * Stumbled over here because me too, I found the article a little bit "addy". After having read these lines I decided to change the article. I have removed many explicitly listed features as the article's purpose is not to list them all. Instead I wrote some prosa lines, and merged the two list sections together into "Supported languages and operating systems". --Chiccodoro (talk) 12:17, 22 May 2009 (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)


 * I used E back in 1986, as well as other editors. Some did not support editing files larger than 64 KiB at all. Others used a 64 KiB memory window over the file, and you could not leave that window before first saving it. The sentence "SlickEdit's programmers found a way to overcome these limitations" might need to be worded differently, but at the core, E's support to edit files exceeding 64 KiB (without "window") is notable: it was one of the first text editors to support that. Thiadmer Riemersma. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.91.223.71 (talk) 18:12, 19 November 2017 (UTC)