User talk:Hardoche

Speedy deletion nomination of Alpao
Hello Hardoche,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Alpao for deletion, because it seems to be inappropriate for a variety of reasons.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks,  Dewritech (talk)  09:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the information. --Hardoche (talk) 15:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Alpoa
Not in its present form.
 * You must provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines for companies.
 * The text is still too promotional. It's not a good idea to start with the products since that looks like spam straight away. You tell us nothing about the company that the article is supposed to be about (location? number of employees? profits/turnover?), it's all about what you are selling
 * There are lots of unsourced spammy claims (innovative... revolutionary... etc), too many peacock words in general.
 * I'm unsure whether the table helps you. Nobody is going to buy a mirror on the strength of a wikipedia article, I'll think about that.
 * the draft should really be in a sandbox, I'll move it to here shortly

 Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  17:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your support on this.
 * Do you think that the modifications (here) are good enough ?
 * Thank you again and in advance.
 * --Hardoche (talk) 14:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I've replied at WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. Huon (talk) 17:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments
I made these tweaks. Note in particular what I did with the first two refs, the format makes them look better, I suggest you format the other web-linked refs the same, so they look better.

The bad news is that as it stands I would delete on sight. The article's all about the products, which looks spammy, especially as they are the only things mentioned in the lead, which is supposed to summarise the article. Apart from a bit of history, it's all "look how good our mirrors are". See my second and third points in the bullet list above, which I don't think you have addressed.

The article is supposed to be about the company, what it sells can be part of this, but shouldn't be the main thrust of the article. Some of the application sections also lack references, if you can't find a neutral source for the claims, leave them out  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  05:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the comments.


 * I changed the others reference format, it indeed looks better.


 * I am surely not very objective on this. But I am trying hard on it.
 * I am sorry, but I do not really understand your following points:
 * "the article's all about the product": I removed the part concerning the products. I do feel that introduction, applications, management is not about the products. It seems important to give information on the advantages of using adaptive optics in those application. Could you please be more specific or explain it again ?
 * "the text is too promotional" / "too many peacock words in general": I thought that I removed all the too promotional text. Could you please again be more specific ?
 * Sorry if I bother you with it all my misunderstanding.


 * By the way, is some Alpao's competitor (for example CILAS or Boston Micromachines Corporation) are following those rules ? I feel that they are not, but I would really like to know point of view on it.


 * One last question, could I use generic references of adaptive optics for the applications or should I use specific references from Alpao ?


 * Thank you very much in advance ! -- Hardoche (talk) 08:22, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I see what you mean about the other articles! Better to use generic references than make it too linked to the company. Sort out the refs, move back to article space (don't cut-n-paste) and see what happens  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  11:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much and again for your help. -- Hardoche (talk) 12:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)