Talk:Grammarly/Archive 1

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2019 and 10 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Pa ying xiong.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Old AfD, New Content and Subsequent Deletions

Dear Wikipedians (especially administrators), I am sorry that my edit summary could be misleading as the article failed an old AfD and it simply says "reCreated this article", but the new content is different from the old; two administrators have deleted the new content and restored it after being pointed to this. Please see: Mike Rosoft's talk page and JamesBWatson's talk page. Thank you. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 10:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revisions

I've toned down some of the rhetoric and removed the Advert tag. There is no doubt that Grammarly is a Notable platform and has received mention in WP:Reliable sources. The present text can of course be adjusted, and here is a more neutral version for the community's consideration. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 12:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, GeorgeLouis. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 16:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At a glance, it looks to need a more thorough cleanup. Anything not referenced with independent should be considered for removal. --Ronz (talk) 03:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. How is this a notable platform, any more than the spammy white smoke software that purports to do the same thing? How is this not an ad for their service? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.175.102 (talk) 15:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've enough sources with detailed coverage to meet WP:N. --Ronz (talk) 17:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? 4 out of the current 13 sources are from TopTenReviews, which is clearly an affiliate site (check the links out to the products, they use afftrack), one is the BBB, and companies provide information to the BBB by way of application, so it's not really an objective source, and the About.com mention is obviously part of some sponsorship package Grammarly has bought there. What's left are a couple of in-passing mentions on random blog subsites, and a shorty nomination and brands pay to enter that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.175.102 (talk) 21:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously. All we need is a single source that fits WP:N criteria. --Ronz (talk) 02:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, there seems to be quite an effort being made to use WP as an advertising platform. Shouldn't we all be on our guard?

Primary sources

I'll put together a list of primary sources whose use might violate WP:PSTS: --Ronz (talk) 18:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"BBB Business Review - Grammarly, Inc". Better Business Bureau. Retrieved December 24, 2012. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) --Ronz (talk) 18:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Katherine Schulten (October 19, 2012). "Celebrate the National Day On Writing by Posting #WhatIWrite Messages on Twitter". The New York Times. Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr. Retrieved December 24, 2012. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |newspaper= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) Yes, there's the Forbes article to go with it, so it's more a NPOV/NOTNEWS concern overall. --Ronz (talk) 18:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Most of what's in the "Recognitions" section is problematic, and was the reason for the tag. All the university sources are primary sources. --Ronz (talk) 20:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PSTS—primary sources policy clearly states "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material."

"BBB Business Review - Grammarly, Inc". —is a primary source that have been reliably published by Better Business Bureau, it also has some contents which are secondary, and it is used to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
"Celebrate the National Day On Writing by Posting #WhatIWrite Messages on Twitter". —is a primary source that have been reliably published by The New York Times, it is used to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts, which is also supported by a secondary source—I Don't Tolerate Poor Grammar in Forbes. {{cite news}}: External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) Therefore, "NPOV/NOTNEWS concern" do not arise.
The "Recognitions" section is well cited; the university sources are all secondary sources—publications or publishers are clearly secondary and independent of Grammarly, and are only interpreting the Grammarly service or software, which is the primary source. They are licensees of Grammarly, and are (by those publications) introducing or recommending Grammarly to their own students. Moreover, they are being used to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts.

Generally, the article is properly cited with at least 24 references, and should not have been tagged with the primary sources template. It is also noteworthy that Ronz first tagged this article with the refimprove template, and when GeorgeLouis corrected him by undoing his revision and pointing him to WP:BRD, he undid GeorgeLouis, placing the current primary sources tag instead; see history. Thank you. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 13:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree.

Would it help to explain specifically how and why these sources are problematic? Just because the source is not Grammarly doesn't make it appropriate nor independent.

The university sources are all written by the respective universities, so they're not indepedent. They are all primary as well.

In the meantime, I'm going to remove the worst of it. --Ronz (talk) 18:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When there is disagreement, seek third opinion and do not continue to edit, pushing only your own side of the argument—GeorgeLouis earlier pointed you to WP:BRD; maybe, you should also look at WP:EQ and WP:CIVIL. I am employing RfC below. Thank you. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 12:42, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RfC - Primary sources

Considering the discussion between Ronz and I above, I am seeking your input on the followings:

Is the Grammarly article well cited or referenced as at the 18:25, 2 May 2013‎ revision; is it appropriate to tag it with Template:Refimprove or Template:Primary sources?
If it is well cited and referenced as at 18:25, 2 May 2013‎ revision, and inappropriate to tag it with Template:Refimprove or Template:Primary sources, can we revert to the 18:25, 2 May 2013‎ revision?

Thank you. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 12:42, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:THIRD would have been a better first step.

I've trimmed it to the less clear-cut concerns, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE problems. --Ronz (talk) 15:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any disagreement based upon the sources and relevant policies, so I've removed the primary sources once again.

I offered to explain in more detail the problems. I do so again.

One of the sources is a press release from Grammarly. From the comments so far, I see consensus that a press release from Grammarly would be considered primary and not independent.

The confusion seems to be over primary sources from other parties. --Ronz (talk) 03:41, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the primary sources tag. I see no relevant discussion on removing the since the sources have been identified in multiple sections of the article. Note that specific tags are preferred over general ones.

I've also removed the press release and the associated content per the discussion above.

Finally, I've written up a WP:THIRD request, since we've no response from the RfC. --Ronz (talk) 16:28, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a regular volunteer at the Third Opinion project. Your request has been removed because the RFC is still pending. It is inappropriate to request more than one form of dispute resolution concurrently. Once the RFC has run its course, typically 30 days, then feel free to move on to other forms of dispute resolution if consensus has not been achieved through the RFC. There is no hurry. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:33, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go ahead and remove all the disputed content once again. I believe the policies are clear. If we need to elaborate on them at a later date, we can do so. --Ronz (talk) 19:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. OK, first, I'd suggest that you reformat this RfC so that it's not in the middle of an ongoing discussion. Second, I'd suggest that you clearly state what exactly the problem is. I had to read the article, read the discussion, and check the diffs before I could truly understand what this dispute is about.

The primary dispute seems to be over references to universities licensing this service. Are those primary sources? Yes, definitely; however, primary sources are not forbidden, and I'd be predisposed to allow them to stand. They document a trivial fact that is not open to interpretation, and they are used sparingly. This seems to be in line with WP:PRIMARY. Third-party, secondary sources would be preferable, but I would probably let them stand.
A press release also seems to be under dispute. I did not bother to read it. WP:QUESTIONABLE and WP:SPS indicate press releases to be of dubious status; I would avoid the use of a press release, unless it's for name, location, year of incorporation, etc.
I don't see how the BBB could possibly be a reliable source, and I don't think that it's even notable in this context.
The NYT piece is a blog, barely mentions Grammarly, and is a primary source. Questionable, at best. If this is truly a notable event, it should be easy to find a better source; therefor, I would remove it.
I don't see any reason to revert User:Ronz's other, less controversial edits. They seem in line with policy; however, I would suggest that he resist the urge to be bold while the RfC is active. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:39, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any objections to removing the material sourced only with primary sources that NinjaRobotPirate has identified? --Ronz (talk) 17:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be an appropriate step at this point. Andrew³²⁷ 18:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Fox1942 (talk) 10:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will like to remind us that as noted by NinjaRobotPirate above, primary sources are not forbidden, so we can only remove those that do not comply with WP:PSTS policy, not all. And if I may ask, Ronz, what is your reason for the recent reversion of my edit? It looks like it is fun to you. Thank you. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 16:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TO RONZ/ALL: From the discussions, reviews, improvements, maintenances and cleanings done so far, would you agree with me that the Recognitions section is no longer disputed and there is no more improper use of primary sources in the article as at 16:51, 3 August 2013 version? Can I remove Template:Content from the Recognitions section and end this RfC? Thank you. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 17:22, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From my pov, the result of this RfC is that indeed there are primary sources in the article, and that at least some of them were being used inappropriately.

I certainly dispute the Recognitions section, but I'm holding back on it until we're clear about the identification and use of primary sources first. --Ronz (talk) 19:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that by allowing you to remove the BBB accreditation mention does not mean that I agree with you that primary source is inappropriately used there; WP:PSTS is very clear about it that straightforward statement of fact is allowed. And whatever you did to the Features section, I only let it pass to please your ego — the features are well covered in the reviews by the secondary source cited. In any case, this RfC will be closed when it is a month old, and I hope that you would not continue to push your own side of the argument outside of this discussion. Thank you. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 13:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you feel that way. Please WP:FOC. --Ronz (talk) 15:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was randomly selected as an RFC on this issue also, and looking at the Talk: going on here, and a cursory scan of the article itself, it appears to me that (talk) has the right take on things here so I won't comment other than to say that Ronz's survey of the issue and comments on it seem right to me and should be considered for adopting.

And yes, a Third Party step was skipped but no harm done, looks like the issue of contention is fairly minor so a Third Party could have been requested, but an RFC works just as well. :) Good luck, people. Damotclese (talk) 15:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So it seems that editors are having trouble agreeing with the consensus above. Why? --Ronz (talk) 16:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And what is the consensus above? You cannot be a judge in your own case. No contributor had directly addressed what should be removed or if the Template:Refimprove or Template:Primary sources should be replaced, NinjaRobotPirate only gave his opinion on the reliability of BBB, which in this case has nothing to do with the fact that Grammarly is a BBB accredited business. WP:PSTS is very clear on how to use primary sources; study it again. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 17:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"You cannot be a judge in your own case." Says who and why? We're here to improve this encyclopedia. The consensus is clear. Let's move on, as others have agreed on doing. Otherwise it looks like an attempt to prevent improvement of this article. --Ronz (talk) 17:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All your uncontentious improvements have not been undone so far, has it? Why not try bringing in something new about Grammarly instead of finding faults where there is none; about tagging, take a look at the history of Grammarly, I am not the first to revert you that you revert back! —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 18:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, it seems some editors are having trouble agreeing on the consensus above. Why? --Ronz (talk) 19:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No response? --Ronz (talk) 15:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, can we move on? --Ronz (talk) 17:36, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still no consensus?

This RfC seeks answers to two questions, which no contributor had directly answered, except for NinjaRobotPirate who gave a general view above. There seems to be an agreement here, though, that the use of primary sources as stipulated in WP:PSTS is not forbidden, but no third-party had pointed out exactly where primary sources have been used wrongly. This dispute, therefore, remain unresolved, but instead of leaving disputed contents and seeking alternative dispute resolution channel, Ronz keep pushing his own side of the argument by removing disputed contents, including those that NinjaRobotPirate directly said are OK. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 10:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"but no third-party had pointed out exactly where primary sources have been used wrongly"

NinjaRobotPirate wrote in part:

" I would avoid the use of a press release, unless it's for name, location, year of incorporation, etc."

"I don't see how the BBB could possibly be a reliable source, and I don't think that it's even notable in this context."

"The NYT piece is a blog, barely mentions Grammarly, and is a primary source. Questionable, at best. If this is truly a notable event, it should be easy to find a better source; therefor, I would remove it."

I'd say that those are indeed cases where primary sources where used wrongly.

I then asked for agreement on the matter and two editors responded, agreeing that the material should be removed.

Then we have from yet another editor, "I won't comment other than to say that Ronz's survey of the issue and comments on it seem right to me and should be considered for adopting."

This looks like clear consensus to me. --Ronz (talk) 17:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where is press release being used?

Why would BBB, a non-for-profit organization founded in 1912 and focused on advancing marketplace trust be unreliable with the data it collects, and in what context is BBB referenced? — Opinion

Is the NYT piece the soul reference in that context or for that event?

Is the use of primary sources forbidden? No. How or/and where are they wrongly used? — WP:PSTS

Asked for agreement on which matter? — Vague

Ronz's survey of which issue, or all issues? — Vague

Yes, consensus that primary sources are not forbidden, and should be removed only if wrongly used; No consensus on where primary sources are wrongly used.

—JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 18:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So we agree that multiple editors agreed to the removal of the information or not? --Ronz (talk) 19:27, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Yes, consensus that primary sources are not forbidden, and should be removed only if wrongly used; No consensus on where primary sources are wrongly used." —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 08:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you're then just ignoring what everyone else wrote? I'd say that we have consensus then, and you're just ignoring it. --Ronz (talk) 16:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the tag. The RfC specifically mentioned the tag. Multiple editors agreed that there were multiple primary sources within the article that should be removed. Since one editor refuses to allow that material to be removed, the problems stand and the identification of the problem should remain. --Ronz (talk) 18:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the Template:Primary sources you just restored, and the Template:Content I used, leaving the Template:POV you just introduced. I believe we are done here; let us leave it to other contributors or third-parties to make further changes or air their views. I hope you would not keep pushing your views through Wikipedia:Sock puppetry though, an administrator can tell if you do. Thank you. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 10:18, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but until we resolve the issues, I'm going to do my best to represent the consensus here in the article.

Please start a sockpuppet investigation at WP:SPI, and wait for an outcome before justifying edit-warring based upon sockpuppetry accusations. --Ronz (talk) 15:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I removed it again; RfC questions above were not answered by other contributors, no consensus to keep. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 16:22, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a dispute, correct? And the dispute is about primary sources, correct? Then why are you edit-warring about the very existence of the dispute? --Ronz (talk) 17:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is why we have the Template:POV there. You are prolonging this dispute unnecessarily; once again, "I believe we are done here; let us leave it to other contributors or third-parties to make further changes or air their views." —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 18:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please WP:FOC. Given the repetition of rather inappropriate comments, it might also be helpful to review WP:TALK, WP:HERE, WP:CHOICE, and WP:OWN.

Myself, I'm going to work on continuing to improve this article. --Ronz (talk) 15:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT Problems in Features section

In addition to the NOTNEWS/UNDUE problems mentioned above, the "Features" sections has the same problems as well as WP:NOTHOWTO problems. --Ronz (talk) 20:03, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

I've gone ahead and removed most of the material that seems inappropriate for an encyclopedia article, including much of the information sourced only with primary sources [1]. If there's something that I've changed that needs further explanation, please indicate it. --Ronz (talk) 23:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No response? Then I'll go ahead and revert back. --Ronz (talk) 18:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and reverted. I'm certain that there is at least some middle ground in all this, but without a response, we're stuck. --Ronz (talk) 16:08, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Contradictory information

For instance, including contradictory information without indicating why is simply unacceptable. --Ronz (talk) 16:08, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the contradictory information. --Ronz (talk) 18:51, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it once again. Why it could possibly belong is beyond me. --Ronz (talk) 15:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[2][3] --Ronz (talk) 18:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That statement is not contradictory, it is a quote of a published work, highlighting some features of Grammarly; where you have "250 grammar checks" is from different sources, showing the independence of the sources, and should be left for the reader to evaluate. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 09:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but including contradictory information presented without out explanation, much less need, seems to demonstrate a lack of interest in improving this article. --Ronz (talk) 15:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non notable mention of sourcing information

Another example, adding author and source information from a reference into the article when neither is relevant to the topic nor notable in themselves. Such information seems to be padding the information to make it look more important than it is. --Ronz (talk) 18:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[4] [5] --Ronz (talk) 18:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is appropriate to give credit to authors of published works, authors have names, not "One"! —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 09:24, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an issue, as the diffs demonstrate. The material is properly attributed in the reference. The rest is padding of non-notable and non-relevant information. --Ronz (talk) 15:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate and bad reference

Another example, a duplicate ref to a publisher's webshop is in the article once again after I removed it [6]. Why do we need a duplication of the same reference, especially when the link doesn't actually work and the site is a webshop? --Ronz (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[7] --Ronz (talk) 18:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is a link to the publisher's bookshop, I will remove it now—not put there by me though. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 09:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. So no explanation why you added it and edit-warred over it? It seems that you're not bothering to look at the material you revert, the edit-summaries, nor the discussions here on the talk page. --Ronz (talk) 15:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Continued discussion

The 23:22, 13 August 2013 version identified at the start of this discussion has none of these problems. It still looks like a good version to work from, though the proper Alexa ranking information shouldn't be lost in the process even though it is being updated by a bot. --Ronz (talk) 16:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still no response? Then let's change the article to 16:16, 21 August 2013 and be done with it. --Ronz (talk) 14:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The current version 16:19, 21 August 2013‎ (UTC) which is same as 14:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC) is best to work from. You may remove any duplicate citations but not disputed content; when you removed a press release, it was not disputed, I rather restored that content with new citations to reliable sources. Thank you. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 15:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Then do you have any objection to the removal of the specific items brought up in this discussion? The contradictory information, the padding with reference source information, and the redundant/bad/promotional link? --Ronz (talk) 16:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like most of the RfC contributors, your statement here is vague, not specific; please list which statements need to be removed, which should be rephrased or modified and how, which are contradictory, which are "redundant/bad/promotional link", and explain "the padding with reference source information", then we can look at each. Thank you. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 17:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's clear from the edit summaries, but I'll try to help make it crystal clear. --Ronz (talk) 18:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've created sub-sections for each of the three issues with diffs of the specific material, all having edit summaries with the wording used here on the talk page. --Ronz (talk) 18:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will remove the Template:Primary sources you just restored, and the Template:Content I used, leaving the Template:POV you just introduced. I believe we are done here; let us leave it to other contributors or third-parties to make further changes or air their views. I hope you would not keep pushing your views through Wikipedia:Sock puppetry though, an administrator can tell if you do. Thank you. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 09:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

Summary: This article was apparently created by searching for "Grammarly" and using all results regardless of the quality of the source or the appropriateness for use in an encyclopedia article on the subject. While we've made some progress in previous discussions, there are still many NPOV and related (WP:NOT, WP:RS, WP:PSTS) problems: --Ronz (talk) 16:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: None of the concerns listed below are new, but rather this is just a detailed summary of problems with the article already identified. Review of the editing history and previous discussions may be helpful, but I'm trying to make this stand alone to make it easier for new editors to review. --Ronz (talk) 16:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

While I hoped we'd get through the primary sources dispute, it appears it's going to be dragged out. In the meantime, I'm going to put together a NPOV report so we can further improve the article. Note that generally, NPOV problems occur where information is sourced only with primary sources. --Ronz (talk) 18:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, there's all the WP:UNDUE weight given to redundant information not relevant to the topic as a whole. --Ronz (talk) 15:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The list of clients (universities in the case of this article) is an example of a combination of not having an independent source, and giving undue weight to the material. It's a common mistake in articles, resulting from not discriminating enough between publicity versus information of an encyclopedic nature. Simply put, we don't include lists of clients, competitors, etc without independent sources clearly demonstrating that they deserve mention. --Ronz (talk) 15:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Use of BBB as a source. It's currently used three times, never with an independent source:

"It was incorporated in August 2011."
Such information would just come from the company's application to the BBB. Is BBB a reliable source for such information? Seems like an incorporation date is not commonly included in such articles. --Ronz (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Grammarly, Inc., is headquartered in San Francisco, with an additional office in Kyiv, Ukraine."
Note that the second source is an interview.

Again, is BBB a reliable source for such information? While the headquarters info is commonly included in such articles, additional office locations are not. --Ronz (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"It received Better Business Bureau accreditation in 2012."
I don't believe such information is worth noting. --Ronz (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The goal of Grammarly is to perfect written English."
The first source is an interview. The second doesn't verify this, instead saying, "And yet there is an app called Grammarly, whose sole existence is predicated on preserving linguistic decorum." --Ronz (talk) 16:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Shirley Kuiper and Dorinda A. Clippinger wrote in their book, Contemporary Business Reports that "This checker performs 150 grammar checks, including contextual spelling, and returns a summary, a list of the lapses, and a brief analysis of each category."
The information from the book appears outdated, contradicting information in this article. The authors' names and the book title are irrelevant except as reference information. The reference is used for sourcing, so the entire sentence is redundant where it is not inaccurate. --Ronz (talk) 16:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Grammarly Inc. collaborated with The New York Times, AARP The Magazine and other organizations to celebrate the National Day on Writing in 2012. It received Better Business Bureau accreditation in 2012."
Simply not worthy of note in an encyclopedia article about Grammarly. --Ronz (talk) 18:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"In October 2012, it was reported that Grammarly has some 300,000-plus Facebook likes."
Simply not worth noting. --Ronz (talk) 21:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Grammarly was also nominated in April 2013 for Best Web Services & Applications in the 17th Annual Webby Awards.
Not worth noting. --Ronz (talk) 21:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, you have listed all the many problems you think that this article has, which I take to be your personal opinion and I disagree with you, so let third-parties contribute and do the necessary clean-up if any. Thank you. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 15:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"In her book, Become a Freelance Writer: Your Complete Guide to the Business of Writing, Rachael Oku wrote, "Aptly named, Grammarly is the most popular tool to help detect poor grammar."
Not a reliable source for such information. Once again, the information is padded with irrelevant, redundant reference information (author, book title). --Ronz (talk) 16:54, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is your OPINION! Note that Wikipedia is an online encyclopaedia and its contents should be simple and straightforward enough for all to easily read and understand. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 17:23, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NPOVN discussion started here summarizing the above. --Ronz (talk) 16:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that all of the issues raised above are indeed POV issues that should be addressed, largely by deleting the material in question. ElKevbo (talk) 16:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with every point brought up in the summary above, for the same reasons given. Though the "National Day on Writing" collaboration isn't so bad as the others. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:07, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I'm OK with using the BBB as a source for when founded and where located. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:09, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given this feedback, I've removed all the disputed content with the exception of the location information.

I'm not clear on what "I'm OK with using the BBB as a source for when founded" refers to. Incorporation? I'll restore that too while we wait clarification. --Ronz (talk) 17:11, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On over seven issues raised here, we have feedback from only two users, waiting for more feedback from other users should have been much better. In any case, based on the feedback of InedibleHulk, I have restored the "National Day on Writing" collaboration, and I also restored the Webby Award nomination because it is a notable industry recognition earned by Grammarly, or may be, someone should explain to me (based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines) why it is "not worth noting" in a Wikipedia article about Grammarly. Thank you. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 13:58, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no. Get someone to support your personal opinions and back them with policies, or take it to further dispute resolution. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 16:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the Webby Award] again; Grammarly was not just 'nominated', it is one of the five finalists, just as it was one of the finalists in the fifth annual Shorty Industry Awards in April 2013, that is why they have it listed there, and it is in third place among the five, two places behind the winner. And the feedback from InedibleHulk is clear enough. Thank you. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 17:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, get someone to support your personal opinions and back them with policies. --Ronz (talk) 18:58, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is noteworthy that Ronz have been making threats on my talk page in order to have it his way with this article. Thank you. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 18:40, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal opinions on both matters don't matter here if you can't back them in policy and get others' to agree. You've a conflict of interest here. Please stop. --Ronz (talk) 15:35, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of discussion at WP:COIN

I've started a discussion at WP:COIN here that discusses the problems we've had with this article. --Ronz (talk) 16:29, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like he's definitely a paid editor that has been trying to hide the fact. --Ronz (talk) 23:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion archived here --Ronz (talk) 03:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lock

I've locked the article for a week because of the continuous edit war between RonZ and Johnmoor. I'm aware there are accusations aat various noticeboards and talk pages about Johnmoor's edits, but the disruption to the article is too long-standing to wait for the results of those discussions. Without expressing any opinion the merits of the accusations against Johnmoor, if sanctions are sought, the best forum would be WP:ANI or WP:AN, depending on the sanctions requested.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:45, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully the COIN will allow us to avoid that. --Ronz (talk) 17:24, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV Template or Dispute Tag

This template has outlived its usefulness as the article has since been improved upon; if there are other concerns, list them here. Thank you. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 22:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had only left it in case you or other paid editors returned. --Ronz (talk) 17:05, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ronz. Is there anything currently in the article that warrants this tag? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nik.grammarly (talk • contribs) 15:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the advert tag that remained, after making a couple of small changes. --Ronz (talk) 16:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate your help here, Ronz. Thank you for your responsiveness! Nik.grammarly (talk) 19:10, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unsolicited commercial e-mails from Grammarly

In case it's relevant to the concerns here:

http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=271765

Jcejhay (talk) 16:24, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a reliable source. --Ronz (talk) 19:09, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did not offer the above link as a definitive Wikipedia-quality footnote for factual information, but simply as evidence that concerns have been raised about Grammarly's practices beyond the discussion here.

Jcejhay (talk) 21:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Raised, I should add, in a multi-user forum with no evident agenda other than exposing bad practices.

Jcejhay (talk)

To put it another way: This is a talk page, not an article. I offered that link in case it had any bearing on the conversation. If you assess the contents and find nothing useful, fine, but in this context (talk, not article footnote) I question the brusque dismissal.

Jcejhay (talk) 22:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, someone has put out an elance job to edit this article. [8] Brianhe (talk) 15:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]