Talk:Nicomatic SA

NPP Peer Review
I tend to be a stickler about NCORP and I would have been most likely to just leave this for another reviewer rather than taking it to AfD so I don't see anything wrong with Rosguill marking it as reviewed. Seems perfectly in-line with policy, guidelines, and procedures to me. Noting the quality of the sources was a good tag as well. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:55, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , I'm glad you chose this article for review, I was considering listing it myself but it didn't quite make the cut against the others I came across. I'll address your comments once the other reviewer has weighed in. signed,Rosguill talk 22:59, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Since Atsme has dropped out of the peer review cohort, I'll just add my other thought, which is that I think that the sourcing narrowly meets NCORP, despite also including some PR-adjacent citations. signed,Rosguill talk 21:24, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , yeah that's why I acknowledged I'm a stickler when it comes to NCORP and am more likely than many to take covered topics to AfD. That said if you're interested in saying which sources qualified for you I'd be happy to explain what reservations, if any, I have about them. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:18, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , to be honest I don't really feel like diving through all the sources again, but I vaguely remember having the impression that the coverage in Le Dauphine was solid. signed,Rosguill talk 04:36, 1 December 2019 (UTC)