Talk:Eurogentec

Removal of unsourced content
I noticed that the original version of this article, which I shortened considerably, was recently restored by an IP. To make clear why I did this, I'm going to leave a message here that I also left on the creator's talk page. Here it is:

The biggest reason for me removing the content was because it was not backed up by reliable sources. See WP:V and WP:RS for the Wikipedia policies. The reason for the reference that I added (the Belgian Foreign Trade Office ref) is that it proves notability for the company, and will prevent it being deleted from Wikipedia altogether (as happened in the past). I realise it is old, of course - we need more reliable third-party sources that discuss the company so that we can make the article more up-to-date. Press releases and other first-party sources are generally frowned upon, because they are inherently less reliable than third-party sources; however they can be used to verify uncontroversial claims. The history information looked good, but really it needs a source. I'd say this section could be referenced using the Eurogentec website as it looked like fairly normal, uncontroversial information. You should be careful to maintain a neutral point of view, as well - the previous version looked like advertising to me. See WP:NPOV for the policy. For good examples to copy you could look at the articles on Microsoft and BAE Systems, which are featured articles on Wikipedia.

Note that some of the history section was sourced by the IP that re-added the material - I have left this in the article and updated the summary slightly as a result. All the best.  — Mr. Stradivarius  ♫ 15:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Promotional material in lead
The lead section introduced in this edit looks like it's breaking the policy at WP:PROMOTION. Wikipedia should have a neutral point of view, and so adding words like "leading global supplier", "provides a wide range", "experienced", "fully ISO 9001 and ISO 13485:2003 certified", "full-service state-of-the-art GMP-compliant" and "high-value" is really not acceptable, I'm afraid. Eurogentec's accomplishments should speak for themselves, so I don't think there is any need to talk them up with language like this.  — Mr. Stradivarius  ♫ 09:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Third-party sources
There seem to be an awful lot of first-party sources in the article - in fact most of the sources come from the Eurogentec website itself. This is ok for information that is not controversial, but for information that other editors could question there needs to be a reliable third-party source. (See WP:RS for more details.) For example, in this edit the article uses the Pharmatching reference to back up the claim that Eurogentec is a GMP Biomanufacturer, but the Pharmatching site is obviously a press release that comes directly from Eurogentec - it does not qualify as a reliable third-party source. Are there any other sources for this information? Remember the sources don't have to be in English. French-language newspaper articles, for example, are absolutely fine.  — Mr. Stradivarius  ♫ 12:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)