This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
|
||
It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
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)
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)
Article no say Grammarly product fix grammar for which languages. Trinhhoa ( talk) 02:38, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
In May 2017, the company raised $110 million in its first round of funding from General Catalyst, IVP, and Spark Capital. [3] In October 2019, the company raised $90 million during the second round of funding, at a valuation of more than $1 billion. [4] 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. [5]
I've moved this section here as it looks like WP:PROMO and WP:NOTNEWS. -- Hipal ( talk) 03:17, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
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)
This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
|
||
It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
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)
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)
Article no say Grammarly product fix grammar for which languages. Trinhhoa ( talk) 02:38, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
In May 2017, the company raised $110 million in its first round of funding from General Catalyst, IVP, and Spark Capital. [3] In October 2019, the company raised $90 million during the second round of funding, at a valuation of more than $1 billion. [4] 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. [5]
I've moved this section here as it looks like WP:PROMO and WP:NOTNEWS. -- Hipal ( talk) 03:17, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
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)