Talk:Sharklet (material)

State of play
This whole article may need to be rewritten. It is far too close to the Sharklet website and offers precious little independent verification of Sharklet claims. I suspect this is not marketing but surplus enthusiasm on the part of an editor, but the fact remains the article is very short of reliable sources, and poorly written with it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

A substantial part of the material was a copyvio from a white paper by Sharklet. Many of the other references seem to be reports of research in which Sharklet staff participated, so they are primary and not independent; I have removed these for now for safety. It might be possible to assemble a satisfactory article making use of some such sources, but it would essentially involve starting again. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC)