What's the standards for a corporate article like this? On this article and the one about XMLSpy, there are very positive things written that may go outside the facts about what the product is (which is what I came here to find out). Trying to set up some sort of balance, Stylus Studio provides a counterpoint that people have toned down to avoid having it look like a marketing attack (which is exactly what they're doing, they're a competitor). Now, the Stylus Studio article itself does read NPOV, but it's simultaniously less informative.
What's the correct way to handle this?
CSZero 19:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I have added some additional referenced information to this page and added citations from independent sources as well as the company website. The Pros and Cons sections have been removed since they are inherently based on opinion rather than fact and appear to have opened the door to unsubstantiated claims by competitors in the past. Egandrews (talk) 15:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)