![]() | This article is rated Start-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.
|
This page was declined because of its lack of neutrality and lack of independent external sources. I am somewhat perplexed by this feedback, as I have edited many other Wikipedia pages that were significantly less neutral (written more like a brochure for a business) and were even more lacking in external sources. There are certainly some claims in the article that are difficult to provide supporting evidence for, so I will remove those, and I will do my best to cite additional independent, reliable sources.
The feedback provided mentioned the article needed to be edited by someone not associated with the company. However, I know that it is OK, per Wikipedia, for someone being paid by the company (I am working as a contractor) to create a page for said company as long as they disclose it, which I have. So, I guess my question is, once I update the article to make it more neutral and to potentially include more sources, is there a way for another editor to review it first — to get an outsiders' perspective — before I resubmit? Xlea Nollmav ( talk) 19:00, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
I have submitted this page twice now and had it rejected both times. The first time, the person reviewing the article said it sounded promotional, needed to be more neutral and needed to include more citations, specifically from independent, reliable sources. I took this feedback to heart and went through with a fine-tooth comb, cleaning up the copy, cutting out large sections, re-working others, adding citations from many more independent, reliable sources (newspapers, etc.) and once I felt it aligned with the language, tone and neutrality of an encyclopedia, I resubmitted it — only to have it denied again, and this time with hardly a word as to what is wrong with it. @ Greenman said only that it is "exceptionally promotional," adding "There is a reason WP:COI editing is strongly discouraged."
Discouraged is the word. Yes, I am creating this page on behalf of a client of mine, but that doesn't mean I am trying to present them in a biased, complementary or promotional manner. On the contrary, I actually want to get this page published for them — which is why I have been working hard to remove any whiffs of bias or non-neutrality. While I disagree with Greenman's determination — as I believe this reads as a typical plain-language Wikipedia post (that actually reeks less of non-neutrality than pages I've edited before) — even if I wanted to address his/her comment, I couldn't, as no concrete feedback was provided.
I understand that Conflict of Interest editing is "discouraged," but that doesn't change the fact that it is allowed. Simply making a determination based on the fact that I am being paid to create this page (which I disclosed, as the rules require) is shortsighted and wrong. Unless you can point to clear examples of where the copy is exceptionally promotional, then I see no reason for this article to not move forward.
I appreciate your time and consideration. Xlea Nollmav ( talk) 02:39, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi @ Xlea Nollmav please provide the three best sources that meet WP:ORGCRIT, keeping in mind WP:AUD. See also WP:THREE. S0091 ( talk) 20:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-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.
|
This page was declined because of its lack of neutrality and lack of independent external sources. I am somewhat perplexed by this feedback, as I have edited many other Wikipedia pages that were significantly less neutral (written more like a brochure for a business) and were even more lacking in external sources. There are certainly some claims in the article that are difficult to provide supporting evidence for, so I will remove those, and I will do my best to cite additional independent, reliable sources.
The feedback provided mentioned the article needed to be edited by someone not associated with the company. However, I know that it is OK, per Wikipedia, for someone being paid by the company (I am working as a contractor) to create a page for said company as long as they disclose it, which I have. So, I guess my question is, once I update the article to make it more neutral and to potentially include more sources, is there a way for another editor to review it first — to get an outsiders' perspective — before I resubmit? Xlea Nollmav ( talk) 19:00, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
I have submitted this page twice now and had it rejected both times. The first time, the person reviewing the article said it sounded promotional, needed to be more neutral and needed to include more citations, specifically from independent, reliable sources. I took this feedback to heart and went through with a fine-tooth comb, cleaning up the copy, cutting out large sections, re-working others, adding citations from many more independent, reliable sources (newspapers, etc.) and once I felt it aligned with the language, tone and neutrality of an encyclopedia, I resubmitted it — only to have it denied again, and this time with hardly a word as to what is wrong with it. @ Greenman said only that it is "exceptionally promotional," adding "There is a reason WP:COI editing is strongly discouraged."
Discouraged is the word. Yes, I am creating this page on behalf of a client of mine, but that doesn't mean I am trying to present them in a biased, complementary or promotional manner. On the contrary, I actually want to get this page published for them — which is why I have been working hard to remove any whiffs of bias or non-neutrality. While I disagree with Greenman's determination — as I believe this reads as a typical plain-language Wikipedia post (that actually reeks less of non-neutrality than pages I've edited before) — even if I wanted to address his/her comment, I couldn't, as no concrete feedback was provided.
I understand that Conflict of Interest editing is "discouraged," but that doesn't change the fact that it is allowed. Simply making a determination based on the fact that I am being paid to create this page (which I disclosed, as the rules require) is shortsighted and wrong. Unless you can point to clear examples of where the copy is exceptionally promotional, then I see no reason for this article to not move forward.
I appreciate your time and consideration. Xlea Nollmav ( talk) 02:39, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi @ Xlea Nollmav please provide the three best sources that meet WP:ORGCRIT, keeping in mind WP:AUD. See also WP:THREE. S0091 ( talk) 20:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC)