Talk:Diasec

New to Wikipedia. While I enjoyed the entry and find the subject interesting, I am concerned about the conflict of interest that is especially plain to see in the section titled "Uses." See the page on Wikipedia policy concerning conflict of interest here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest

Won't change anything now but might later. thanks

Streptopus (talk) 08:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Made some changes: Removed references to a business establishment unrelated to subject. Stripped out some subjective qualifiers. The article also makes claims without providing sources. I labled two of these in the text and they still need sources. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Streptopus (talk • contribs) 07:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Forgot to mention that all the changes I made are in the section titled "Uses" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Streptopus (talk • contribs) 07:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Citation Needed
@Streptopus: I looked at the two "Citation needed" elements. I don't think there is any such thing for the second since I'm not aware of anybody purposely aging diasec samples in a controlled environment (there are companies that do this for inkjet prints). A quick google search yielded nothing. So I suspect this was inserted as an assertion rather than fact. I don't really doubt that the diasec process would help preserve the images - it does make logical sense. But a better way to phrase this might be to point out and quote manufacturer's claims directly. (not changing anything, just offering it for discussion).

The first Citation Needed mark may have good circumstantial evidence: Since the Diasec patent was filed in 1973, and since the filing process requires proof that the patent object is unique, non-obvious and new, it is reasonable to assume that the company was indeed the first to create this process. Otherwise, any competitor who has a true claim of prior art would have very likely spoken up during the patent process. I know this is not the same as finding a source that directly says it is so, but it may be the next best thing. As I remember from reading the patent, bonding images to acrylic is indeed the core of the patent.

A more important aspect in terms of neutrality is that the article right now makes it sound like the diasec process is the current state-of-the-art way to bond images to acrylic. This was true historically, but today there are plenty of manufacturers who support less labor-intensive methods that are less reliant on proper handling of liquid chemicals. As a result, diasec is rarely used anymore in photographic mounting. The main reason is that film-based bonding using Opti-Seal has matured sufficiently to no longer have the bubbling problems and is therefore widely adopted at least in the US. Again, not adding anything in the article yet, just thinking it through and passing it on for discussion at the moment.

Klausson (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC).

Advertising, COI, etc.
The current version of the article has many passages that are promotional ("totally consistent", "colours are more brilliant"), and all sourced from the company itself, not from disinterested third parties. The editors that have added or edited this material have only edited this one article, which suggests that there are issues of conflict of interest. All the sources for this article are affiliated with the company; there is not a single third-party source, although Diasec and other face-mounting processes are covered in many other sources (if they weren't, there would be a question of notability, which I don't question). So the Advert, COI, and Verification tags seem appropriate to me. --Macrakis (talk) 15:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC)