Talk:Procreate (software)
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Procreate (software) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
 | Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
Article is written like an advertisement edit
This article is written like an advertisement. The tone of voice and certain facts make it sound exactly like an ad written by the company. I've taken the liberty of adding the advert warning template. TheForgottenKing (talk) 05:14, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
New article edit
I have just moved this article from user space, where it was mostly written by User:TaniaWalker who has disclosed her COI in the topic. I've looked over the article and confirmed that the topic is notable and that it is well sectioned, formatted and referenced, and suitable for article space. If anyone is concerned that any of it is out of place please edit as you normally would or raise the issues here. Just a request please to assume good faith and please do not bite the newcomers! -- Chuq (talk) 11:41, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
An advertisement, not an encyclopedia page edit
Of all the ad-like "articles" I've ever seen on Wikipedia, this is the most clearly just an advertisement. At least, it's written *exactly* the way an ad for the company, by a paid marketer, would be written -- so I have to assume that's what it actually is.
An "article" like this debases Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.104.102.187 (talk) 05:14, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Failed verification of cite note 36 edit
I've failed to verify cite note 36 (at the time of writing). The edit summary said that I also failed to verify note 35, but after rechecking, it was simply spelt as "Pro Create" instead of "Procreate" on note 35, making find on page not show it. AwesomestUser (talk) 23:40, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Wiki Education assignment: English 102 Section 4 edit
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2024 and 3 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JamarK0709 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Mikade harvey, MalikChanel, Nadrayton, TykiraG, Taty2004, Luvv.Empress, Nynydagoat, KClark21.
— Assignment last updated by DoctorBeee (talk) 21:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Feature list is too prominent edit
The bulk of this article is the feature list, with each feature given its own subsection and a description. It reads a bit like an advertisement or like something that should be on their website. The list provides little of value, especially since most of these features are common in image editors. They might make more sense enumerated in a table in an article comparing digital painting software, and summarised in a paragraph or two here. However, as someone who has never used this software, I do not feel comfortable making the edit myself.