Talk:List of repetitive strain injury software

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Disability (Rated List-class)
WikiProject icon List of repetitive strain injury software is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.

Encyclopedic Writing and this Article[edit]

I would like to point out the type of writing that was used in this article pre-7/25/2013.

Subjective Opinion By writing things like "...program reduces injury caused by repetitive movements," the article is flooded with opinion. Unless the particular program has been scientifically proven to treat repetitive strain in ALL cases with a 100% success rate (which is just about impossible), the aforementioned opinions and ilk are not needed in an encyclopedia. Anything that was opinionated was changed (eg, "...program may reduce injury caused by repetitive movements.").

Use of "You" The word "you" should almost never be included in encyclopedic text. For example: "...program reminds you to take a break..." The article should be written to express and define the uses of the subject; not to be directed to the reader, as if it were written by an employee of the program's company.

Change: "...program reminds the user to take a break..."

Advertisement-like Adjectives Describing a program as "totally free" is unnecessary. "Totally" does not help to describe the product or inform the reader -- it just makes it seem better. "Totally free" and "free" are exactly the same thing, so the aforementioned examples of bad adjectives are removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria[edit]

I think one of the common methods for determining what entries to be included should be used:

  1. Only include entries with their own Wikipedia articles
  2. The above as well as entries verified by independent sources.
  3. Both of the above as well as entries of products from notable corporations with their own Wikipedia articles.

Thoughts or other ideas? --Ronz (talk) 18:59, 5 December 2016 (UTC)