Talk:Swiss Diamond International
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Marketing work? edit
This read like quite some marketing work, any editor around here who can decide on it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.137.113.180 (talk) 15:46, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
I guess it reads like any other company history? I mean, it's verified as much as possible from what I can see, but some of the information would only be known by the company. Which statements do you feel are non-neutral in particular? Kristynesig (talk) 20:58, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- "some of the information would only be known by the company" seems against WP:V policy. Unless they have published it somewhere publicly and cites to it added, Wikipedia generally cannot accept personal recollections or private communications as reliable sourcing. For example, every time the article says "they say" or "they claim", there absolutely must be a specific cite for where they say/claim that. DMacks (talk) 21:53, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Unsigned tagger from 19 January is engaging in drive-by tagging. Per Wikipedia:NPOV dispute "the editor who adds the tag should address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort... The salient point is that one side—who cares enough to be making the point—thinks that the article says something that other people would want to disagree with." Tag should be removed until an editor has actionable issues to present. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristynesig (talk • contribs) 17:00, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Can a company use a URL of its own internal marketing to make claims such as "The coating was improved by more than thirty percent in both nonstick release performance and longevity over time." on Wikipedia? Shouldn't the URL at least reside on an external site even if the test itself is mostly just marketing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.124.58.202 (talk) 17:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)