I have made some edits, but overall this article sounds too much like marketing material. I checked it is different than the blurb at nackichan.com, fortunately. Also, I think the product started its life as T3 on DOS funded by an NSF SBIR grant before bought out by MacKichan, should that be perhaps mentioned. Don't have verifiable sources for that though, WP:OR. Jmath666 (talk) 08:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
It is like an advert - I see no reason for this page at all.
I see no justification for having this page. It is not a paricularly important piece of software. It simply looks like an advert to me too. Even if it was re-written in a non-advert manner, I do not believe the software deserves an entry. Drkirkby (talk) 08:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Certainly it should not look like an advertisement. When I get a chance, I'll try to edit it to be more neutral.Theodore.norvell (talk)
- As to whether it "deserves" an entry: There are lots of pages about various editors and word processors. For example Word and MacWrite. There is even a page comparing 20 TeX editors; 18 of these have their own pages. There is a List of Word Processors with about 80 word processors listed; almost all have their own pages. Who is to say what makes one piece of software sufficiently important to merit a Wikipedia entry and another not? Scientific Workplace/Word is one of only two (that I know of) editors for LaTeX that presents a somewhat WYSIWYG view of the document. That makes it highly valuable to those who need to edit LaTeX as efficiently as possible. Theodore.norvell (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC).
I tend to disagree with whom mentioned it as not an important piece of software, do you know that the majority of Scientists use this software...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by KyleAraujo (talk • contribs) 07:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)