Talk:Dianrong

Promotional edit
this diff introduced a bunch of overtly promotional language, and content sourced purely from press releases, churnalism and the company website. It was noted at WikiProject Finance, here. I reverted it. Jytdog (talk) 17:42, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Kindly point out exacly where the promotional content is located
Hello Jytdog. I sincerely fail to see where the promotional content is located. Please provide specific quotations and examples. Also, I wonder why you call churnalism to the sources. Articles from Bloomberg, Reuters, Crowdfundinsider, Dealstreet Asia, even Wikipedia itself. What really seems to be the issue here is the lack of knowledge about the fintech industry, since it is not clearly your area of expertise. Unless a thorough and sincere review of my edits is done by you, I will have to request impartial revision from other editors. It is very simple to delete, and then acuse, when most editors and users won't take the trouble to review the History of the article. Please set an example of sincere self criticism and review my edits once again, instead of going into an edit war. Regards Contenidos01 (talk) 13:50, 11 September 2017 (UTC)Contenidos01
 * Please reply on your talk page before making further edits. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Issues in the diff provided in the section above.
 * loaded a bunch of content and sources into the lead (the part above the table of contents) that was not in the body.  Please see WP:LEAD- all the lead does is summarize the body. Update the body first, then summarize the body.
 * sourcing is generally bad:
 * 1) "2016 Top Markets Report Financial Technology - Country Case Study" International Trade Administration
 * 2) "Interview with Soul Htite of Dianrong to understand the intersection of Supply Chain Finance and Blockchain" Daily Fintech
 * 3) "Dianrong Points to Department of Commerce Report Labeling it the P2P Leader in China" Crowdfund Insider
 * 4) "China: Online lender Dianrong buys Quark Finance asset-origination operations" Deal Street Asia
 * 5) "Dianrong scales up ahead of possible IPO" Finance Asia
 * 6) "China’s Chained Finance brings blockchain boost to SME funding" Banking Technology
 * 7) "China P2P lender Dianrong sees market shakeout driving its growth" Reuters
 * 8) "China: WeiyangX Fintech Review" Crowdfund Insider
 * 9) "Dianrong: The start-up that's building China's banking system" CNBC
 * 10) "Dianrong: The start-up that's building China's banking system" CNBC
 * 11) "Dianrong is a P2P online lending platform that enables members to borrow and lend at great interest rates" Fintank
 * 12) "Lendity: ideal marketplace lending exposure for pension funds, asset managers, family offices, private banks" Daily Fintech
 * 13) "China P2P lender Dianrong sees market shakeout driving its growth" Reuters
 * 14) "P2P Giant Dianrong is Preparing for Full Blockchain Integration" Coindesk.
 * 15) "China P2P lender Dianrong sees market shakeout driving its growth" Reuters

Looking at those refs
 * 1) this one is  OK - US govt report.
 * 2) interview.  primary source.  maybe OK for an EL but not something to rely for  an encyclopedia
 * 3) blog, chatty, not great.
 * 4) blog piece that summarizes a press release with no reporting; churnalism and to be avoided
 * 5) can't access- login required. maybe ok
 * 6) blog churnalism around this press release
 * 7) reuters piece.  ok, has reporting
 * 8) blog churnalism around this press release
 * 9) cnbc, OK
 * 10) repeated
 * 11) directory entry. not useful for much
 * 12) repeat of #2, it seems?  Nothing in the Lendity article about his company but the interview is further down the page
 * 13) repeat of reuters
 * 14) coindesk piece is kind of OK.  it is a traderag for cryptocoin and tends to be breathless and speculative.  best avoided but sometimes Ok
 * 15) 3rd repeat of reuters

So some of the refs were OK. Most were not and added no real value.

The goal here is not to promote to provide news, but to provide enduring, encyclopedic knowledge to readers. The genre is encyclopedia - so think Britannica, not newspaper, and not blog.... Jytdog (talk) 06:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)