User talk:Eiree

JME Molecule Editor
I see no reason to prefer the claim "one of the most popular structure input tools on the internet" over "a standard for molecular structure input on the web". I do see reasons to prefer the latter claim because it's a more neutral way of expressing the use of this program. Also, removing the "citation needed" template and then inserting a claim in the article without adding sources is not a way to improve the quality of the article. A link to usage statistics of the program would be far more helpful to let the readers know that the program is commonly used (and saying "look how many Google hits it gets" is not an acceptable way of sourcing claims).

Take note that I didn't personally consider this article for deletion, please see the history of the article to see who placed that template. I've undone your revert partially: the deletion template is no longer there but the stub templates are back (because more can be said about this application) as well as the original claim. - Simeon87 21:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree. I already made change you suggested and will try to modify the article further (although I am not WP expert, but expert in protein crystallography). Thank you for help. [[User:eiree|eiree]