Talk:List of repetitive strain injury software

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 173.168.33.76 (talk) 08:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion criteria[edit]

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

Only include entries with their own Wikipedia articles
The above as well as entries verified by independent sources.
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)[reply]