A fact from Polymateria appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 21 July 2021 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hey David notMD,
I appreciate your feedback on this one, but I feel like you're being a bit harsh. I must admit that I half expected it, because you have a stricter understanding of content rules that I do. But I'd like to discuss some points, because I feel like they're not as bad as you might see them. Let me start with emphasizing that I have no CoI. As you can without doubt see from my contributions, I edit in all sorts of areas. This article caught my interest because it was request in perfect accordance with our guidelines by a representative of the company. You can read my correspondence with her here. I did, however, not implement the requested/suggested article directly, but wrote it myself from the ground up.
Your main points of criticism, as I understand, are "name dropping" and the entire criticism section.
a) Name dropping: I agree that naming prominent people with the sole intention of making something sound more credible is bad. If I were to write an article about Coca Cola, and include a list of people that like drinking Coca Cola ("The following Oscar winners, astronauts and Emmy winners have told they love drinking Coca Cola: ..."), it would, without doubt, constitute name-dropping. In this article, however, I did not include the names with the intention to embellish the company image. Did Prince Charles visit the company to grant them a royal privilege? Certainly not. Did a visit by the Prince of Wales constitute a notable event, that generated some news in reliable sources? In my opinion, it did. The picture you removed was notably the same as used by National Geographic in their article, which I believe was not promotional.
I mean, I get what your concern is. But all those names were in the article not because I was looking for names to add, but because they were featured in reliable source news. Some of the quotes, like that from the Prince of Wales, might sound a bit flattering, but they were attributed quotes. Moreover, is naming prominent investors like the Chou family breaking NPOV or something else? I don't think so.
b) Dropping the criticism section: This feels like the polar opposite of the other point. Can you explain to me why you would do that? I feel like it gives a nice balance to all the fuzz the company got by its prominent proponents: They generated a lot of news about their great product, got lots of people praising the tech – and then there's companies and organizations criticising them, which generated "bad publicity" for the company. Is it wrong to note that well-known organizations like the WWF have criticised the company? It was reported in reliable sources, and imo deserves the same place in an article as the prominent investors in the history section.
If we follow your criticism completely, we simply have a more condensed or even minimalist article. Which isn't bad, but I feel like that's rather a personal preference (exlusionist vs inclusionst) than strictly an enforcing of wiki rules. I chose to include almost anything that was reported in reliable sources, you would prefer a subset that only includes to most important facts. Am I wrong? -- LordPeterII ( talk) 11:19, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
You are free to revert what I cut and I will not cut it again. The issue, however, is that notability is not contagious. Listing notable people who have expressed an interest in the company does not make the company more notable. David notMD ( talk) 11:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
I agree with davidMD that this article should focus on objective facts, not Marketing hooklines and appeals to authority by implying this is favoured by Prince Charles;what does he know about plastics? Plasticomp ( talk) 21:08, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
MeegsC (
talk) 06:45, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Moved to mainspace by LordPeterII ( talk). Self-nominated at 14:24, 25 June 2021 (UTC).
@ Jsieff: Hi, I'm the original author of this article, having created it after reviewing a request by user SophieStromback. I have this article watchlisted and occasionally check in, but I missed the vandalism since it happened while I was away. As I feel somewhat responsible for this article, in the future, you can simply reply to this post and ping me, by including {{ping|LordPeterII}} in your reply, and then signing your post with four tildes (~~~~). Then I will restore an unvandalised version (or some other editor might, since talk pages are public). Feel free to also ping me when you want to suggest the addition of content to the article; as I can review it and check whether and how to implement it. -- LordPeterII ( talk) 09:35, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi @ BrigadierG, I just wanted to let you know I've removed the templates you added. I have created this article, and have been a major contributer to it; but I have no COI whatsoever. This article also has been approved by AfC, and appeared on the front page (via DYK), and has not been deemed an advertisement hitherto. Don't get me wrong, I am sympathetic to your efforts and am sure you'll find dozens, if not hundreds of articles where it is warranted; just in this case I think you are mistaken. – LordPickleII ( talk) 10:01, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
@LordPickleII, I agree with @BrigadierG that the COI & advertisement statements are applicable to this article. Plasticomp ( talk) 14:00, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
A fact from Polymateria appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 21 July 2021 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hey David notMD,
I appreciate your feedback on this one, but I feel like you're being a bit harsh. I must admit that I half expected it, because you have a stricter understanding of content rules that I do. But I'd like to discuss some points, because I feel like they're not as bad as you might see them. Let me start with emphasizing that I have no CoI. As you can without doubt see from my contributions, I edit in all sorts of areas. This article caught my interest because it was request in perfect accordance with our guidelines by a representative of the company. You can read my correspondence with her here. I did, however, not implement the requested/suggested article directly, but wrote it myself from the ground up.
Your main points of criticism, as I understand, are "name dropping" and the entire criticism section.
a) Name dropping: I agree that naming prominent people with the sole intention of making something sound more credible is bad. If I were to write an article about Coca Cola, and include a list of people that like drinking Coca Cola ("The following Oscar winners, astronauts and Emmy winners have told they love drinking Coca Cola: ..."), it would, without doubt, constitute name-dropping. In this article, however, I did not include the names with the intention to embellish the company image. Did Prince Charles visit the company to grant them a royal privilege? Certainly not. Did a visit by the Prince of Wales constitute a notable event, that generated some news in reliable sources? In my opinion, it did. The picture you removed was notably the same as used by National Geographic in their article, which I believe was not promotional.
I mean, I get what your concern is. But all those names were in the article not because I was looking for names to add, but because they were featured in reliable source news. Some of the quotes, like that from the Prince of Wales, might sound a bit flattering, but they were attributed quotes. Moreover, is naming prominent investors like the Chou family breaking NPOV or something else? I don't think so.
b) Dropping the criticism section: This feels like the polar opposite of the other point. Can you explain to me why you would do that? I feel like it gives a nice balance to all the fuzz the company got by its prominent proponents: They generated a lot of news about their great product, got lots of people praising the tech – and then there's companies and organizations criticising them, which generated "bad publicity" for the company. Is it wrong to note that well-known organizations like the WWF have criticised the company? It was reported in reliable sources, and imo deserves the same place in an article as the prominent investors in the history section.
If we follow your criticism completely, we simply have a more condensed or even minimalist article. Which isn't bad, but I feel like that's rather a personal preference (exlusionist vs inclusionst) than strictly an enforcing of wiki rules. I chose to include almost anything that was reported in reliable sources, you would prefer a subset that only includes to most important facts. Am I wrong? -- LordPeterII ( talk) 11:19, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
You are free to revert what I cut and I will not cut it again. The issue, however, is that notability is not contagious. Listing notable people who have expressed an interest in the company does not make the company more notable. David notMD ( talk) 11:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
I agree with davidMD that this article should focus on objective facts, not Marketing hooklines and appeals to authority by implying this is favoured by Prince Charles;what does he know about plastics? Plasticomp ( talk) 21:08, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
MeegsC (
talk) 06:45, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Moved to mainspace by LordPeterII ( talk). Self-nominated at 14:24, 25 June 2021 (UTC).
@ Jsieff: Hi, I'm the original author of this article, having created it after reviewing a request by user SophieStromback. I have this article watchlisted and occasionally check in, but I missed the vandalism since it happened while I was away. As I feel somewhat responsible for this article, in the future, you can simply reply to this post and ping me, by including {{ping|LordPeterII}} in your reply, and then signing your post with four tildes (~~~~). Then I will restore an unvandalised version (or some other editor might, since talk pages are public). Feel free to also ping me when you want to suggest the addition of content to the article; as I can review it and check whether and how to implement it. -- LordPeterII ( talk) 09:35, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi @ BrigadierG, I just wanted to let you know I've removed the templates you added. I have created this article, and have been a major contributer to it; but I have no COI whatsoever. This article also has been approved by AfC, and appeared on the front page (via DYK), and has not been deemed an advertisement hitherto. Don't get me wrong, I am sympathetic to your efforts and am sure you'll find dozens, if not hundreds of articles where it is warranted; just in this case I think you are mistaken. – LordPickleII ( talk) 10:01, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
@LordPickleII, I agree with @BrigadierG that the COI & advertisement statements are applicable to this article. Plasticomp ( talk) 14:00, 23 September 2022 (UTC)