Talk:Polymateria

Appreciate the feedback, but I feel like you're being a bit too harsh

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)

@David notMD: Thanks. I might restore some of it (didn't want to do so without talking to you first though); I must admit that is partly do to how much effort I put into the draft up to this point. I have thought a lot what should or should not go into the article, and while I can see your point about the names, I don't feel it is that bad now (I already made one edit where I removed some that I agree were a stretch).

I read the guidelines a bit more after what you said, and I found WP:INHERITORG which I think is what you meant. I acknowledge that's a thing to watch out for, and especially in the edit linked above I removed famous names that were only associated, but not the focus of the news I cited. But especially with the visit of Prince Charles, it was in a big part his person that resulted in news. Of course that alone didn't make the company notable. But it generated quite some news, precisely because not every company is notable just because it produces something. The visit of Prince Charles, which resulted in that picture also used in the National Geographic article, generated coverage in reliable sources – and such coverage is what constitutes notability, I think. Thus I believe the visit should not be excluded from the article, just like the criticism by WWF and others should stay. (Unless, again, you favour a minimalist stance on article content in general). But I think I would now scrap the quote from the Duke, since it was just generic "best wishes".

I'm a bit conflicted since I specifically asked for your opinion, and now disagree with it. But I think it was still valuable, even if it just brought myself to realize that I already thought about some things, and didn't as much about others. And ofc it's not "my" article, so it might end up more closely to your vision. Consensus will determine that. But for now I'll just hope it will get moved to mainspace as close as possible to "my" vision. To end this wall of text: Thanks, even feedback you don't agree with can be useful. --LordPeterII (talk) 12:33, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I'll leave this with a mention that I am not a reviewer, although I've developed a sense of what belongs and what not from my efforts as a Teahouse host. My input was intended to improve the draft being approved. David notMD (talk) 12:48, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I acknowledge that your criticism might be warranted. For now, I'll simply wait for another opinion from a reviewer. And if they agree with you... well, then I'll have to face reality :) --LordPeterII (talk) 13:04, 30 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)

@Plasticomp: The above discussion is old, very old; it stems from before this article was accepted at WP:AfC. Since then, it got also approved for appearance on the main page in the DYK section, and was edited by several other editors. None found any major issue with its neutrality, although some things were trimmed back from their initital state. How does the article imply the company is favoured by Prince Charles? He visited, and that's a fact. The article claims nothing else. While I welcome that you are now discussing on the talk page, your previous (reverted) edits to the page imply that you have a major COI or at least a somewhat personal vendetta against the company. Care to explain why? The article has a rather large Criticism section, where all the shortcomings and criticism by various groups are discussed. I don't believe we need any more, or take out those statements that are supported by WP:RS. If you have any actually new sources that question Polymateria, or biodegradeable plastics in general, please provide a link to them. This article wasn't written by Polymateria staff, only requested, and I intend to keep the article as neutral and independent as possible. You will find that the edit by Jsieff has also been reverted. None can push their agenda here, neither you nor the company. We have a WP:NPOV, and I intend to uphold it. –LordPickleII (talk) 21:23, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by MeegsC (talk) 06:45, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that a British company developing biodegradable plastics has been criticised by Tesco, Aldi and the WWF? Sources: [1] [2]
  • ALT1:... that in 2020, a former Tesla executive joined a company aiming to become the "Tesla of plastics"? Sources: [3] [4]
  • ALT2:... that a British company is developing plastics that are vulnerable to sunlight, air and water? Source: [5]

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Montagne d'Or mine
• Comment: This is an article about a company, and therefore a bit tricky! I didn't find any policy that explicitly forbids putting one in DYK, but I'd fully understand if there is one and this is ineligible. In any case, I would not put the company name outright on the front page, which is why I have used "a company" in the hooks. And just in case this gets suspected: I have no CoI, I have just created the article and am trying to get each one I create on DYK. I actually find ALT1 to be more "hooky", but the original hook sounds less promotional imo. ALT2 is also fun, if you agree that it is not misleading.

Moved to mainspace by LordPeterII (talk). Self-nominated at 14:24, 25 June 2021 (UTC).

• This article is new enough and long enough. The hook facts for ALT1 and ALT2 are cited inline, the article is neutral, and I detected no copyright issues. A QPQ has been done. I'm not approving ALT0 because the organisations seem to have been criticising the BSI standard and not the plastic product itself. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:58, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oh, nice. That went easier than expected, thanks Cwmhiraeth. You are right about the original hook, I somehow mixed that up a bit. (I have struck ALT0.) --LordPeterII (talk) 16:16, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Please ping me in case of vandalism, no need to go to the noticeboard

@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)

@LordPeterII:

Hi Lord Peter, thanks for getting in touch with me! Appreciate your help!

Since the launch of the BSI Standard in October 2020. The following traction has been achieved with other governments and nations adopting the standard. Would be great to get the following paragraph into the article - to provide an honest factual summary of how the BSI standard has been received globally.

The BSI PAS 9017 has subsequently been adopted in multiple countries around the world, including as national standards in the Philippines (PNS 2166) and Hungary (MSZ 29017). The standard and its criteria are now being used to distinguish between conventional and biodegradable single-use plastics in countries as diverse as India, Malaysia and Georgia. NITI Aayog, the National Institute for Transforming India, promoted the BSI PAS 9017 standard in its report on Alternatives to Plastics published in May 2022. The Committee convened to guide the report included Indian companies like Reliance and ITC. Jsieff (talk) 10:56, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

@LordPeterII

Can we also include our notable nomination as top 100 tech pioneers by World Economic Forum (WEF)

https://www.weforum.org/organizations/polymateria

Also our (b2c brand Lyfecycle) launches with Twickenham (Home of English Rugby)

https://www.twickenhamstadium.com/news/sustainability/twickenham-tackles-ocean-plastic-pollution

And likewise Harlequins

https://www.quins.co.uk/article/harlequins-launch-self-destructing-cups-to-tackle-plastic-pollution

Thank you

Jack! Jsieff (talk) 11:24, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

@Jsieff: I can try to include a bit about the BSI standard's adoption, but will shorten it (since this article is primarily about Polymateria, not the standard). However, you would need to point me to some reliable sources that have reported this. As for the other things:

• The World Economic Forum link you provided gives no context – instead I might be able to use this.
• For the station cups, likewise it is much preferred to have some secondary source, not only a press release. I found this which is usable.

So yeah, no guarantee that all things will end up in the article; but you can help me by giving secondary sources. (btw don't mind my new signature, you can ping me as before) –LordPickleII (talk) 11:59, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

@LordPeterII

Hi Please see below regarding government sources on standards work.

Link to official publication of the standard by the Hungarian Standards Board (MSZT): https://ugyintezes.mszt.hu/webaruhaz/szabvany-adatok?standard=141193

Link to official publication of the standard by the Bureau of Philippines Standards: https://bps.dti.gov.ph/index.php/component/booklibrary/115/view_bl/773/plastics-in-general/14174/plastics-biodegradation-of-polyolefins-in-an-open-air-terrestrial-environment-specification?tab=getmybooksTab&is_show_data=1&Itemid=115

Malaysia Government Marine Litter Policy & Action Plan: https://www.kasa.gov.my/resources/alam-sekitar/national-marine-litter-policy/2/

Georgia technical regulation N472 on biodegradable plastic bags: https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/5284854?publication=0

NITI Aayog, the National Institute for Transforming India, highlighted the BSI PAS 9017 standard in its report on Alternatives to Plastics published in May 2022 https://www.niti.gov.in/sites/default/files/2022-07/Plastics%20Alternative%20Study_Final_Report_compressed.pdf Jsieff (talk) 09:27, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi @LordPeterII]

Just following up on the above.

Thanks,

Jack Jsieff (talk) 10:06, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

@Jsieff: Hi, I currently have several other things to attend to around here, but I will get back to it, it's on my to-do list :)

In the meantime, it would be better to have a secondary source on the BSI standard implementations. That is, someone talking about that they were implemented, rather their actual implementations. The reason is that I can read neither Georgian nor Hungarian, and would have trouble to verify that these do what you say they do. That's not to say I don't believe you; but if I could not independently verify that and would only take your word for it, it would compromise the objectivity that we at Wikipedia strive to uphold. A Bloomberg, Tech News (example) or similar article would be good.

Somewhat unrelated, but you yourself should still post the required disclosure about your COI on your userpage, like you were informed. –LordPeterII (talk) 19:08, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi @LordPeterII

Thanks for getting back to me. I appreciate that you are very busy, so thank you for your time here.

I am not sure there is a more reliable source that the Government websites for all.

In the case of Hungary, you have the Hungarian Standards Board website publishing this and for Georgia, you have the Ministry of environment publishing the new resolution signed off by the Prime Minister - (can do auto translate if need be)

I am not sure I am understanding correctly - but surely the government websites/ministries/standards boards are the most reliable/factual source for updates on what the governments are implementing?

With regards to the Philipino, Malaysian and Indian standards work - thats all directly in English.

In either case you are not taking my word per say BUT the government themselves who are introducing the measures. Jsieff (talk) 15:18, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

@LordPeterII Yes let me do this - thanks! Jsieff (talk) 15:19, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

@LordPeterII should be complete thanks Jsieff (talk) 16:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

@LordPeterII

Hope your well just following up on it! thanks! Jsieff (talk) 13:43, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

@LordPeterII Hope all is well, can we add include a section on our recent Series B fundraise and Lotte Titan MOU. Please see here sources:

https://sifted.eu/articles/tesla-of-plastics-raises-20m-news

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/temasek-backed-fund-indorama-lead-fundraising-for-self-destructing-plastic-firm-1d3c9dcc

https://themalaysianreserve.com/2023/05/10/lotte-chemical-titan-and-polymateria-to-develop-biodegradable-tech-in-malaysia/

https://www.thestar.com.my/business/business-news/2023/05/10/lotte-chemical-titan-optimistic-about-performance-in-2h23 Jsieff (talk) 10:28, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I removed COI templates

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)

Dude... it seems like you may have a COI yourself. I have none, and none of the text in the current article has been deemed an advertisement. The template was only placed because you and a Polymateria employee had been making undue edits to the article. But these have all since been removed, hence why I removed the template. If you have constructive feedback that's not distorting what the sources say, feel free to give it. Otherwise, just let it go man. –LordPeterII (talk) 15:16, 30 September 2022 (UTC)