User:Ejierfretaw/Sandbox

FREIJE Treatment Systems is a leader in electronic water conditioning technology based just outside Indianapolis, Indiana. Since its founding in 1986 by Bill Freije, FREIJE Treatment Systems has been committed to solving its customers commercial, industrial and residential water problems through technology and innovation. In January 2008, FREIJE began the expansion of its workforce from 12 employees at its location in northeast Indianapolis to 200 employees at a new facility near Greenfield, Indiana. Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels praised the company for its growth when so many companies were moving from Indiana.

FREIJE’s engineering technology treats commercial and industrial cooling towers, boilers, portable water, closed loops, once-through cooling and other water applications to control mineral scale deposits, corrosion and microbiological fouling.

Building on the technology mastered in the commercial sector FREIJE expanded its product line with the release of the residential EasyWater system in 2001. To date FREIJE maintains three residential units (EasyWater 1000, 2000 & 3500) and multiple commercial units.

See Also

EasyWater

Descaling

External Links

| Corporate Site

| Bringing Jobs to Indiana

| Recognized by the Indiana Economic Development Corporation

| Corporate Headquarters Expansion

| Governor of Indiana Visits

Comments
You asked for my comments on this material. I think there's one basic principle about Wikipedia's articles that I should note here, and then give you examples of how it works with your article. Essentially, what needs to happen is that you need to write the whole article not from your point of view, not using your words, but by quoting the opinions of others and only using the words that they use, then by giving a reference to the place where those others have said what they said, so that those opinions can be verified by others.

So, in the first sentence, you say that the company is a "leader". Who says so? How is that term defined? It is probably incontrovertible that the company is in the business of electronic water conditioning technology, but if you're saying that it's a "leader", you have to prove it by reference to an expert opinion of some sort. So, for the second sentence in the first paragraph, there are a number of things that are unsupported assertions. How do you define, and prove, "committed", "problems", "technology" and "innovation"? Here, we call those "peacock terms", and they all have to come out. I can appreciate that you think your company is pretty good at what it does, but -- a key point -- this is NOT an advertisement for your company. This is information about your company, and not only does the article itself have to justify its existence, so does everything in the article. Anything that smacks of advertisement will be ruthlessly and immediately deleted by one of our many vigilant editors -- like the entire third paragraph. Remember, this is an encyclopedia, not a business directory. The specific details of your product lines are a matter for your own website. If something like "Water Treatment Magazine" wrote an article about those specific products, then the paragraph can stay, but if not, it will go.

Next problem -- you need to link the "External links" directly to the statements which they support, by using footnotes in the same way that you would in a scientific paper. (I believe a useful link will be References, but I may come and correct this link later if my memory doesn't serve me well.) Right now, the links don't relate to specific assertions in the article. I'm going to assume that the statement in the first paragraph about the governor praising the company is proved by the final link you've provided, but nobody else will -- that link has to be directly related to the assertion. The fourth link you've provided above is a press release, and it doesn't contribute to verifiability since it's essentially your own assertion, so it will be deleted -- if not by you, then by someone else.

Third thing -- people come here to get information. The second paragraph provides some information about how you do what you do, but it doesn't go into detail and, importantly, it doesn't link to anything else in the encyclopedia. There is probably a full article about "cooling towers" somewhere in Wikipedia, and you need to make a link there. If someone wants to know more about your technology in entirely abstract terms -- not by being told how wonderful it is, but how it works and what it does -- this is where they will come to find out. It's not necessarily appropriate for you to include 5,000 words on the topic of cooling towers, but a link to where to find those 5,000 words here in Wikipedia is pretty vital. More to the point of giving you some information that may actually please you (grin) it is entirely appropriate for you to go to the "cooling towers" page and make a link to this page, as long as it's discreet, doesn't use peacock terms and isn't an advertisement. Think about what people would want to know if they were writing a school paper about your company, and where they would go to look for it -- then go there and make the links for them to get back to the corporate article.

I suspect that you are not really aware of just what will happen once you post this article... if it survives its first 24 hours, which for a corporate article is always difficult, you have to expect that people will edit it as they see fit. This is not "your" article once it's posted, it's everyone's article. If the company was cited for environmental violations, labour violations, whatever, expect to find that information added to the article, as long as it's appropriately referenced to its verifiable source. You may not like at all what happens to the article; I've seen it happen that people beg to be allowed to remove the article, which is also not possible. So please, be very sure that this is what you want before you re-post the article.

I hope this is helpful -- leave me a note if there's something more I can offer. My best advice at this point would be to start again, and don't use a single word that isn't what someone else said about the company. By the way, I'd also read our conflict of interest policy -- there are some good things there that may be useful to you. Accounting4Taste: talk 21:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)