|
The article covers material that is largely trivial, represents a tone that is highly promotional -- and has been created without the benefit of collaboration. It has been largely created by a single author. 842U (talk) 21:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- An article about a business is going to have a somewhat promotional tone. In this case, this business is only notable because of their products. It is written from a neutral point of view. See WP:SOAPQxukhgiels (talk) 21:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, if you're accusing me of having a COI, you're wrong. I have no association with a business located in the US; it is just an interest.Qxukhgiels (talk) 21:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- There has been no mention of COI. ::It is not permitted than article be owned and crafted by a single editor, giving the article undue promotional value and amplifying details not worthy of an encyclopedia. If this article is reverted again, there will be a danger of a 3RR violation. 842U (talk) 21:46, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't own the article, I just happen to be the only contributor to it. Please, do not remove content without discussing first here. I'm currently in the process of fixing the tone issues. And it looks like the pot is calling the kettle black here with 3RR.Qxukhgiels (talk) 21:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Article appears to comply with WP:YESPOV. That being so, the {{advert}} tag is unnecessary.Qxukhgiels (talk) 22:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- So far, Qxukhgiels, it appears that you are unwilling to have remain even one single edit made in the last day, by anyone other than youself. You have reverted, three times, all previous edits. This is a clear danger sign that you are "owning" the article. Please review WP:3rr as well as wp:ownership again -- and enter a discussion on the article talk page that demonstrates you are willing to participate collaboratively.
- In the meantime, please review the guidelines regarding advertising and promotion on Wikipedia. I suggest that the article is of limited notability and that it uses many promotional photographs, clearly generated by the company's own marketing department. The article uses a plethora of proprietary names -- where more straightforward descriptive terminology would alleviate this aspect of the article. The article gives subsections to each model and aggrandizes their differences -- the very way a marketing department would -- when in fact these differences are of no larger purpose other than to promote the product. There is very little outside critical thinking or points of view presented in the article -- that would place the company or its products in a wider context. What are the problems and dangers currently with these products? If Jetboil is so notable, there would be reviews and notations regarding the company in a broader context, such as backbacking, companies that are co-founded, etc. I ask that you please consider these points before reverting the article again. 842U (talk) 14:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I've said it before now I'll say it again: I do not own the article; I just happen to be the only major contributor; being the only editor is not the same thing as WP:OWNING an article. It would be of great help if other editors were willing to pitch in. I am not attempting to promote the company at all; I am just writing an encyclopedic article about a company, and dontcha think an encyclopedic article about a company would somewhat resemble an advertisement? It appears to comply with WP:YESPOV. Most of the photographs are from journals, not the companys marketing department; their purpose is to illustrate the concept to the reader, not to promote the subject. A good article is well illustrated by photographs, (see WP:GAC) If you check, you will see that most of the sources are from journals; they are not from the company's website. I am currently working on adding a critical reception section about the company. Please give me time.
- The article still has an advertorial tone. I've cited specifics. I'd start by removing the trademarked names for hardly notable features and photographs direct from the manufacturer. I'm not about to make any further edits than replacing the ad notice. 842U (talk) 20:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Please take moment to review MOS:IMAGES for a refresher on the purposes of images. Or I can sum it up for you: to serve as the primary means of visual identification of the subject. Their purpose is in no way to promote the subject. Would an article about, say, a smartphone not be boring without an image? Most of these images are not directly from the company's website. But even if they were, how would they be any different if they weren't? I'm not going to say it again, but this time if you'd like to argue me, see WP:WPCOMPG first.Qxukhgiels (talk) 21:36, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Qxukhgiels, I understand you feel strongly about your stances on the article, and I trust you are well-meaning. Do you see that you've reverted every single edit that I made to the article in the past month? How can this possibly be a collaborative effort? 842U (talk) 02:37, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The capitalizing of the B in the Jetboil name is a marketing approach that isn't encyclopedic. It gives undue note to an idiosynratic aspect of the company that has no bearing here.842U (talk) 19:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but that doesn't explain all the other condensation of sentences you've done at the article. I can tell you're dodging inquiries about your disruptive by failing to answer my question thoroughly, as well as avoiding edit summaries and moving this discussion to the talk page. This is a clear indication that you are disrupting to make a point, as well as failing to get the point. Your edits to this article may not be vandalism, but they're not constructive, either; they're the opposite. I cases as this the user(s) either agrees to stop (and discusses their reasoning) or continues and gets blocked indefinitely. If you want an example of what I'm talking about, look at the histories of Varna (Hinduism), Kshatriya, and Television in the United Kingdom. You've damaged the quality of the article by condensing these sentences; there is nothing wrong with the way they are. Do you want to help build an encyclopedia, or tear it down. Most of your editing so far at Jetboil has been tearing down.Qxukhgiels (talk) 20:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It's clear that several editors agree the article reads like an advertisement. Minor aspects of the products are described in length in a marketing-speak that emphasizes pet brand names rather than the actual distinctions between the products. If the article weren't crafted to be such a dictionary of Jetboil marketing jargon, the ten or so products could easily be summed up most clearly in a single paragraph and one table. A direction for resolving these problems would be to trim the brand-speak and use fewer, more neutral words to concisely describe the products — which is what I've done. In the meantime, please refrain from writing on my talk page, attacking my edits, using profanity and speculating on my motives. My interest is in improving the article. Respectfully, 842U (talk) 23:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- No, that damages the quality of the article. You appear to have not looked at the histories of the articles I suggested and obviously don't get it. The wording is okay per WP:PRODUCT; I'm not a particular fan of some of those products, it's just that they meet those guidelines, as well as those at WP:ORG. Have you not seen any articles about other similar companies? Take a look at Apple Inc. Apple may be more notable, but they have one thing in common- both are only notable for their products. There are enough reliable sources out there for each jetboil product to suffice WP:GNG, so technically each could have their own articles, but most would agree that they should have their own sections in the main article. Collapsing of the sentences is the opposite of improving the article, and is usually perceived as unconstructive, and in cases as this where it may damage the quality of the article, disruptive. Also, you cannot control who edits your talkpage per WP:TPO. And please stop redirecting my edits from your talk page here. You appear to be trying to evade detection.Qxukhgiels (talk) 23:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a preponderance of agreement that the article has excessive detail and is written like an advertisement. Please do not remove the tags until the article reflects Wikipedia standards.842U (talk) 09:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @842U:- you've obviously missed where I agreed not to. The article does not contain excessive detail. Excessive detail would be, for instance, listing the price of every product, where the products can be purchased, etc. I saw this as the potential for a easy good article. If you want example, look at MakerBot Industries, a company notable for each of their products that I have recently worked on. The information of the products is only basid. Qxukhgiels (talk) 21:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The Jetboil article is devolving into near edit warring again; I have invited other editors who've recently participated in editing the article to join discussion here to help resolve two issues with the article: that it is overly detailed and that it reads like an advertisement. I have also invited the administrators who recently intervened to keep an eye on this discussion. As far as mods to the article, I propose as a starting point a state where much of the market-speak and profuse detail in the article had been trimmed.
- These trims were made in good faith, on the premise that the article is overly detailed and laden with marketing embellishment. I see now the edits have once again been summarily reverted, and the article has been re-inflated to its former state, under the guard of a single editor. I'd like to reiterate the point I originally identified in December: the article has been created without collaboration, albeit with the attention of a dedicated and certainly well-meaning, but nevertheless single editor. It would be helpful to have wider participation rather than narrower participation. 842U (talk) 11:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to chip in with my thoughts, having previously edited this article and had many changes reverted by Qxukhgiels. Clearly the article reads likes advertising. I would actually question whether the company warrants an article at all - the wikipedia policy on whether companies are notable enough for inclusion is WP:ORG and is quite clear:
An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources except... any material written by the organization, its members, or sources closely associated with it
and
Some commercial organizations meet Wikipedia notability guidelines but care must be taken in determining whether they are truly notable and whether the article is an attempt to use Wikipedia for free advertising. Wikipedia editors should not create articles on commercial organizations for the purpose of overtly or covertly advertising a company
The way the article is written, the bulk of the material comes directly from sources within the company and has been created by a single editor. The company is not particularly notable, with most of the independent sources being small reviews in minor camping publications of some of the equipment produced. I would not really consider this "significant coverage". There are probably dozen of companies of similar size, with similar products and similar notability that are not included. Even if we can establish notability from some third party sources I would argue that it is not "truly notable" and the way the current article stands (second quoted point above), and it is blatant advertising.
My first choice would be for deletion of the article, second choice for stripping most of the content, as it is clear advertising. Atshal (talk) 09:43, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reading through the references, the bulk come directly from Jetboil or Johnsons (the parent company), are just short reviews of products in camping magazines that barely mention the company itself, or are blogs. The only really notable citations are from when Johnsons purchased Jetboil, which is already included on the Johnsons page (only warranting a single sentence there). The patent dispute section has only a citation from the US patent office (so no third party coverage), and two press releases from Primus when the patent dispute end, so was never even reported in the media. A few of the references are not even about Jetboil, but the parent company Johnsons. I don't even really see why a wiki page exists for this company at all: once we strip out all the product advertising here, references about Johnsons that only mention Jetboil in passing, the non-notable patent dispute and sources directly from Jetboil, there is basically nothing left to signify any kind of notability. Atshal (talk) 10:07, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for participating. I'd lean in the direction of trimming a large part of the article, but leaving a condensed overview, with basic design and operation info. 842U (talk) 11:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I fully support the changes you have made. The article is much less of an advertisment, but I still question whether this company is notable at all. I am going to go through and remove some of the more questionable source e.g. adverts on sites selling the products. Atshal (talk) 15:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The sole pusher of the promotional content has now left the site and the article has been cleaned. I see no further discussion is required, and would agree with the Template:Collapse of this entire section as closure.--Otterathome (talk) 11:28, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. 842U (talk) 16:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Likewise. Atshal (talk) 14:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
