Template:Did you know nominations/Safetray

POV

Safetray

 * ... that the 2009 Safetray brand serving tray product from Scotland attaches a wait staff tray to a hand similar to how flip-flops (pictured) are secure to the foot?
 * Comment: Expanded 5x. Hook support. Created/expanded by Uzma Gamal (talk).  Self nom at 15:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg 5x expansion confirmed, but this article was previously tagged for COI and promotional tone before the expansion, and frankly the added material does not diminish that perception. Some good information was added by the expander, but I am pretty sure removal of extraneous promotional information would take it below the 5x expansion criteria. Cmprince (talk) 22:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I often work the COIN boards and saw this topic there after it was posted June 18th. I usually see COIs trying to get around Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, but found this an exception. On looking into the matter later, I saw admin's Nyttend May 24 comment on the COIs talk page thanking her for being honest about her conflict of interest, rather than trying to hide it. The COI then worked with admin Nyttend, who was moved by her efforts to restore the article on June 1st to article space. I read at AfD how BusterD, who posted the COIN request, withdrew a negative characterization he made about the company. BusterD also noted on the COIs talk page, "The AfD procedure was closed as keep. This is very much to your credit, because discussion consensus seemed to indicate you and others had applied sufficient reliable sources for the page to stand on its own." I was moved by all this to improve the article. I wrote the article from scratch and posted over what previously was there. I would appreciate additional DYK review on this. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As the COI tagger, I'm much impressed by this expansion by an uninvolved editor, and encourage a second look to verify a neutral point of view. For my part, I was not impressed with the condition of the article when I came across it, but the current version explains the need, history, and development of the subject in a well-cited way. The subject represents a success story, and I can see why the reviewer can still see a tone which could perceived as promotional. Perhaps ordinary editing might improve the tone. In any case, I commend User:Uzma Gamal for a strong improvement over the version which first drew my attention. BusterD (talk) 14:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)