 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. |
Nota Bene is one of the very few fully-featured word processors still in existence, of the many that started life in the 1980s. As such, it seems to me that it has a legitimate place on Wikipedia.
I admit to being an NB user, but I am not trying to promote the product, but rather to document its existence. I don't think I'm saying anything about it that isn't said, at greater length, in the Wikipedia articles about MS Word and Word Perfect--the article on the latter contains a number of statements such as 'its unusually user-friendly macro/scripting language'.
I would be grateful for guidance on this issue.
Above written by Mary Lord Bernard (talk) 12:28, November 16, 2010; signature added later by User:Matchups pretending to be signbot.
I am replying to the above three paragraphs. I take note that you are an apparent novice in editing Wikipedia. I am slightly more advanced in understanding the need to sign posts here by typing four tildes, and the importance of sourcing material. The welcoming and civil environment of Wikipedia recognizes that we were all novices at some point and no one is harshly condemned. We just make corrections and move on.
This article has almost no notes. I am left pondering the astonishing irony that in an article about a word processor whose appeal is entirely to scholars who footnote everything, like sprinkles on a donut, there are almost no notes here. While some may contest the characterization of Nota Bene's "clunky" user interface, the pressing need here is for sourcing. This is not a place for a software review; rather, look at reviews of Nota Bene along with documentation. Then synthesize and summarize what you garner from these sources, with notes and appropriately linked cross-references. If I were fluent in Wiki-ese, I would provide the accepted terminology and links to documentation that describes approaches to writing and sourcing an article of this sort.Waltezell (talk) 23:35, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
- Took almost all the words out of my mouth, but I cannot be so sanguine. Except for the strengths and limitations section it reads, if not like an advertisement, much like a feature list. 'can' is a questionable modal when describing a product when you want to project a NPOV. 'does', or the neutral present is better: "Item does x searches...", "Item searches x..." JohndanR (talk) 22:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)