Talk:Sugru

Who described Sugru thus?
Looks like fantastic stuff. But the two refs after the hook statement just repeat that "it has been described" this way. Is that good enough? Don't mean to be a spoilsport.SpoolWhippets (talk) 02:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

This article reads like advertising copy
So I've added a POV tag. To the major contributors, I would ask: Do you have any direct or indirect connection to the product? ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 04:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't know what to do about it, but I can recognise a press release when I see one. The two newspaper articles, by "Harry Wallop" and a "staff writer" have a lot of text in common as well.SpoolWhippets (talk) 06:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You know there is a tag too, if you think that's more appropriate.... I'm fine either way.  ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 09:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I removed the tag "This article is written like an advertisement..." because in my opinion the article as written is a fair reflection of its sources. Although articles written in this style often are just marketing spin written by products' promoters, in this case this is not this case.--A bit iffy (talk) 10:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Further to my comment above: sorry, I hadn't seen the discussion above prior to removing the tag. In spite of that, I'm still of the view that the article fairly represents its sources, and that the sources are independent. However, if the majority still feel it should be tagged as an advertisement or whatever, then I'll go along with that. Note that newspapers, especially British ones, often lift stories from other news sources, which may explain similarities.--A bit iffy (talk) 10:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The hook used for the DYK is not actually substantiated in the articles. Sugru looks like great stuff, and people are raving about it - maybe the refs jsut need some work so its not standing or falling on the cut-n-paste authority of the Kilkenny People and Harry Wallop!SpoolWhippets (talk) 11:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * An article can "represent its sources" and the sources be independent, and still not conform to NPOV. For example, I could find you a dozen independent sources that say the invasion of Iraq was necessary and prudent. If I wrote an article only citing those sources, you could accurately say it "fairly represents its sources, and that the sources are independent." However, the article would certainly not conform to a neutral point of view. Further, this article uses weasel words, and the fact that they are quoted weasel words does not condone their appearance in this article. I'm putting the tag back now, because regardless of whether or not the article "fairly represents its sources," it is still written like an advertisement, and that violates WP:NPOV. ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 13:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, instead of putting the ad back, I removed most of the POV-heavy language, and quotes/references. How excited a Wired writer is has no place in an encyclopedia entry. ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 14:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The article indeed looks like an advertisement, refers exclusively to dubious sources (blogs etc. that spread word-of-mouth that obviously originates from the company itself rather than actual published test data) and chooses only sources that support praise. It's indeed more like a press release than an article. Obviously Wikipedia is being used as a vehicle for building hype around the silicone product rather than actually informing the users about its properties. Sad but common. --Sigmundur (talk) 11:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Now don't get me wrong. Sugru feels interesting, and that's why I'm here. I want to know more about it than what I can read from the actual Sugru page. That's why it makes me sad that here I see the same voice blasting how great it is without any published facts to support it. I had doubts and now I feel they only have been confirmed; I had hopes and now I feel they have been squashed. Please don't try to build hype by advertising in Wikipedia! Please don't try too hard to control the image Wikipedia gives about your products! I've wasted a lot of my precious time, or rather, you have ):  --Sigmundur (talk) 11:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The sad thing also is that this was obviously written by a marketing guy/gal. You should always let engineers write your Wikipedia articles; they write to peers, to people, and they want to give accurate impressions, like is suitable in encyclopedias. Marketing people write to customer herds with the only focus to get them buy. And many (including me) get a strong allergic reaction from such patronizing and pressuring style. --Sigmundur (talk) 11:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it's going to be incredibly difficult to write a wiki article that's about "a product" without it sounding like advertising copy. No matter what the product is. You have to repeat where it started and what it's claims are as a product. That instantly sounds like marketing talk. It's only if there are lots of counter-claims that it can have balance. If nobody is complaining that a product is bad, dangerous, not meeting it's claims, then it's always going to seem like an ad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.174.77.56 (talk) 01:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Pronunciation?
Should Sugru be pronounced "sue-grew", or "shoe-grew", in analogy to "sugar"? Should be in the first paragraph. --71.174.159.159 (talk) 20:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It's "sue-grew". The inventor says it like that on this youtube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmE9mvn2qL0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.174.77.56 (talk) 01:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)