Talk:Veilside

untitled
Feedback on why this needs cleaned up would be a tad more helpful?!?

It brings together history, base of operations, and information on Veilside's markets.Andy C 15:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It uses weasel words. There are no references. It uses terms that aren't established (and aren't documented elsewhere in Wikipedia) such as "tuning scene", "bodykitted", "performance tuning", and "Combat kit". It's not NPOV and reads like a press release. It could use editing for flow. It is not categorized. It needs a little bit of copy editing, too.
 * I don't mean to be harsh, but good Wikipedia articles are all of the above things. If you need help with the editing, let me know and I'll see if I can pitch-in.
 * The last sencence should probably be the first:

Veilside is an automotive aftermarket company that sells suspension, engine tuning and interior parts, as well as body parts for aerodynamic and aesthetic enhancement.

Article is reworked, hopefully into more of a NPOV article...Andy C 23:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

more cleanup
I've removed more POV stuff, but I've stopped short of removing the product catalog. It probably should go, as I don't think in belongs here&mdash;it isn't encyclopedic, can be found at the website, and I doubt anyone will commit to keeping it current. I did, however, cut out a lot of weasel wording.

The article could still use some help, as it doesn't define terms it uses. "Combat kit" is probably the most important example. What parts are included in "a full range of products"? If a car comes from Veilside, is it really a "factory car"? I'd only use that term to describe a car from the manufacturer's factory. What is "GT-style"?

It's also unclear: the Ministry of Transportation in which country? Can that be linked to another article?

While I repaired several typos and did some copy editing, lots of links remain that erroneously include underlines.

Why is "aero parts" consistently used instead of "body kit"? -- Mikeblas 18:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Combat Kit usually means a replica of the VeilSide style or agressively style body kits. I don't think that's unclear tho, but maybe cuz I follow the import scene.
 * (the above unsigned contribution is from 68.224.47.18, written on 03:23, April 17, 2006.)


 * That's the problem; this is an encyclopedia, and people who aren't familiar with the "scene" will be reading it. Andy C has apparently lost interest in the article, so I'll start cleaning it up. -- Mikeblas 12:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

Veilside → VeilSide — Official website states the S of company name in uppercase, not in lowercase —Willirennen 22:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Oppose Per WP:CAPITAL, when companies use eccentric capitalization in their names, we should follow the the lead of outside sources that write about them, and use the most common form. I did not find any references to this company in the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal, but I notice that in a Google search, the name is more often spelled 'Veilside' rather than 'VeilSide'. So I suggest we *do not* do the move. EdJohnston 16:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:


 * I don't think there's any need for discussion; just do it. -- Mikeblas 23:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 19:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Assessments
Amazingly, three different projects have "claimed" this article. As far as I can tell, they've done nothing else to edit the article. I've assessed the article as low importance because the company isn't very large in sales or employment, and as stub quality because it's very short, poorly formatted, and has no third-party references at all. -- Mikeblas 15:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)