Talk:PHMG (company)/Archive 1

Untitled
Added NPOV tag - this article reads like an advertisement or promotional material for PH Media Group. This is not what Wikipedia articles are supposed to be about. It needs much work to overcome that. I stopped just short of adding a speedy deletion request so the author (who appears to be PH Media Group from the reading but I'll give the benefit of the doubt for now) has a chance to sort it out. 2001:470:690C:2:0:0:0:2 (talk) 11:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Removed the claim of 'World's Largest' - there are no sources cited for such a grand claim. This appears to have been made and removed at least once already. It should not be put back unless there is strong evidence to support it in line with Wikipedia standards. 2001:470:690C:2:0:0:0:2 (talk) 17:06, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Please could you elaborate on why you feel this reads as promotional material for PH Media Group? An external, independent source has been cited in order to verify every piece of information and every claim made on the page. Therefore, apart from the claim about the world's largest - which has rightly been removed now - all of the information in the article is fact, which is exactly what Wikipedia articles are supposed to be about. Please cite examples of where you feel the article needs work and provide reasons why. --Jenniferlever (talk) 11:08, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

In order to better understand the possible motivation of the above user for speedy deletion, I have researched the criteria and the one in question appears to be 'G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion'. Under this criterion, an article can only be deleted if it is 'exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Note: An article about a company or a product which describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion.' Therefore, I do not feel this is the case. This article hasn't been written from a PH Media Group point of view, rather as a factual description of the company backed up by verifiable sources to prove notability. I am unsure where it reads as promotional so would appreciate guidance on this matter to provide clarity.Jenniferlever (talk) 11:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I have requested a third opinion in a bid to resolve this. I think all information stated is factual and properly cited but would welcome further discussion about the issues raised above. Jenniferlever (talk) 15:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

About your Third Opinion request: Your request has been removed because, per 3O guidelines, "Before making a request here, be sure that the issue has been thoroughly discussed on the article talk page. 3O is only for assistance in resolving disagreements that have come to a standstill. If no agreement can be reached on the talk page and only two editors are involved, follow the directions below to list the dispute." Most forms of dispute resolution require extensive talk page discussion before requesting assistance. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

 I've asked twice that you please discuss this matter but have not received a response. Given the non-cited reference to 'world's largest audio branding agency' has been correctly removed, I am confident this article demonstrates a NPOV. All information used is factual and cited. No exaggerated or unsubstantiated claims are made and there is no blatant promotional language. As such, I am going to remove the NPOV tag and if anyone would like to restore it, I would be happy to discuss the matter with them here. — Jenniferlever (talk) 15:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The article still seems overly positive to me, so I've restored the tag. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

 Please could you provide some useful advice on how I might amend this article. I created the page as PH Media has emerged as a source of much research during my studies in audio branding. This is the first page I have created so I was careful to add a citation for every piece of information and stick to the facts. I would really appreciate some help in identifying where you believe the article might be amended as I am struggling to see where this could be done because I have been cautious to make a series of factual statements. Thanks. Jenniferlever (talk) 17:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is that everything it says about them seems overly positive. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying but that doesn't really help me in trying to amend the article to avoid a NPOV dispute. You had already stated you felt it was overly positive but I asked for more help because I didn't understand where or how it sounded overly positive. I'm a fairly new user and am looking for a bit of guidance here. I have been very cautious to make sure everythingI have written is factual and cited. No claims are overstated or use promotional language. For example, the article states PH Media has more than 11,000 clients and mentioned some examples (a verified fact with citation included). It says they provide on-site music to retailers (verified fact with citation). It also says they have a London office as well as one in Manchester (again, verified fact with citation). I state these not to be difficult but because I am having trouble understanding how to amend the article to better fit Wikipedia guidelines. Please could you help.Jenniferlever (talk) 22:57, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to butt in, but I think what Jackmcbarn means is not that the information given is not correct or not factual (so far as I've bothered to check with the given sources, it does seem to check out), but that there is only positive information given.
 * It's all verifiable, but it is possible to be promotional with just facts as well, just like, say, an advertisement for a specific car model usually will take care not to include false information (lest they be sued), but might slant information (like stating a certain fuel economy without stating that the testing is done under circumstances that give the best outcome) or excluding the equally factual negative points (such as, say, potential reparations being extremely expensive, or the use of heavily underpaid labor or child labor) or include factual information not directly relevant (such as mentioning prizes won with previous models, or citing an actual survey that shows customers of a competitive brand are unhappy with that competitive brand's customer service) and of course the tone of voice/words chosen. I can't immediately tell which of these are the case here, but for whatever reason, the article does read as overly positive. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 14:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That's no problem, you're not butting in at all. Your comment helped me to understand the issue a little better so I really appreciate the feedback. Do you have any suggestions about how this might be changed? It is less that I have tried to present positive facts, more that these were the facts and citations I uncovered while searching the web for relevant information. I haven't found anything particularly negative that warrants inclusion. I understand your point re: use of facts for marketing but the claims I have included are less statements about the strength of the company and its products, and more reportage of what they do. For example, I haven't stated how effective their audio branding services are or how successful their on-site music service is, more that these things exist and are used for a specific purpose. I've run the article past a few impartial observers (not on Wikipedia) too and they're equally clueless as to what I could change as they feel it reads neutral, so I'm keen to find someone who can offer some advice or guidance. Thanks. Jenniferlever (talk) 15:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Like I said, I can't immediately tell what's wrong, just that I agree with Jackmcbarn that it reads a bit too positive, if factual. I'd normally compare this page with others in the same category, but Audiobranding has only a handful of pages of which most are stubs. A few things I did notice, although not all are directly related to this issue: I believe that rewriting that section to convey the same information but in your own words rather than the sources' exact words (do keep the sources, of course) would make a lot of difference already, so long as you take care to use neutral wording. If you need some help doing this, for example how to reword it without losing the meaning, just let me know. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 17:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * sponsorship of Mohamed Osman - listed under the PHGM Foundation part, but the text states that he is sponsored by the PH Media Group. If he's sponsored by the PHGM foundation, that should be changed, if he's sponsored by PH Media Group, it doesn't really belong under PHGM Foundation.
 * "[...] UK businesses discovered a 27% rise in the use of accents between January 2012 and January 2013.[6]" - either this part was copied from somewhere with the [6] still attached, in which case it needs rewriting to get rid of paraphrasing, or it was meant to use ref six again. In that case, that needs to be done differently. (You'll need to give ref six a ref name at its first use and then refer to it by its ref name at second use. If this is the case, please poke me here or on my talk page and I'll explain how or change it for you).
 * 'highlighted'; 'revealed'; 'discovered' in the section Market Research. Although correct, this reads somewhat promotional.
 * There also seems to be some serious paraphrasing of sources in that section, which is quite possibly where the seemingly promotional tone comes from. Although the sources themselves seem neutral, they do want the "story" to seem interesting. I'm speaking in particular of the parts "seventy per cent of consumers put on hold for longer than a minute" and "of personal calls to businesses are made at home on a landline", which are identical copies from the given sources, but there are a fair few more such cases; indeed, it seems that the great majority of this section can be either identically or near-identically matched to one of the sources used for the section.
 * Thanks. Your advice has been really helpful. It's good to find fellow users who are willing to provide guidance to newbies like myself! I have made several changes to the piece to improve its neutrality and hopefully you will find this makes it read a lot better. You were right, the sponsorship of Mo Osman did not belong in the section on the PHMG Foundation - I think I misunderstood it was the company rather than the Foundation which was sponsoring him, so I have removed that. I have also reworded this PHMG Foundation section to make it sound more neutral and I have done the same with the final section on market research. If you have a chance, let me know what you think. Jenniferlever (talk) 10:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome, and it's a pleasure to help someone who is as willing to learn and improve as you. The article itself seems much improved to me. Good job especially on changing 'highlighted several key figures' to more neutral language. I've added a comma in another sentence that I feel could use it. Otherwise, it seems fine to me now. I'd suggest asking at least one other person, preferably Jackmcbarn because he had concerns about the neutrality, what they think before removing the tag, however, to make sure there is consensus. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 14:09, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem, I'll ask someone else for an opinion now. Thanks again for your guidance.Jenniferlever (talk) 11:11, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

 Hi. If you read the above conversation, I have taken guidance from another user in an attempt to make the language on this page more neutral. I'd really appreciate it if you could take a look and let me know your opinion on whether this now meets requirements. Jenniferlever (talk) 11:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I've made a few changes of my own and removed the NPOV tag. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC)