Talk:Bausch & Lomb
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Business and Economics WikiProject. | |
| Start | rated as start-Class on the assessment scale | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale. | |
 |
This article is within the scope of Companies WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of companies. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating assessment scale. | |
 |
This article is part of the New York State WikiProject, an attempt to better organize and improve articles related to the U.S. state of New York. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Bulletin: The next New York City meetup is Sunday June 1st. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. |
Contents |
[edit] Article Improvement Drive
Contact lens is currently nominated to be improved on Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive. Please support the article with your vote. --Fenice 10:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Grammar Structure
Regarding the sentence "On August 2, 2002, Bausch and Lomb announced to move the production from the US to Ireland since a request to continue making and selling its contact lenses in the US while it appeals a decision in the patent lawsuit was denied by a federal appeals court.", I feel there is some grammatical error, but I'm not sure of the exact correction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.243.168 (talk • contribs) 02:40, February 12 2006 (UTC)
My input: It's simply a long sentence. There are about three main points that need to be divided into seperate sentences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.184.149.22 (talk • contribs) 02:53, October 2 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Request for balance
Dear Editor: Your Bausch & Lomb information is 1) very negatively biased and 2) very incomplete. To help illustrate my points, please compare the information you provide on Bausch & Lomb versus two of our key competitors: Vistakon (a Johnson & Johnson company) and Alcon. The information for these two companies provides an objective review of the companys' products, corporate information, etc. In contrast, your Bausch & Lomb page is dominated/headlined by information regarding Purevision lawsuits and the ReNu product recall - not our vast range of exceptional pharmaceutical, surgical, lens care and contact lens products.
Also, to further prove my point, did you know that Alcon had a major product recall as well last year on their Systane product? I did not see this mentioned anywhere on your Alcon page, which is another example of the lack of balance in your Bausch & Lomb coverage.
I would much appreciate your attention to this matter. I trust that you will make adjustments to ensure that your readers receive a more balanced view of Bausch & Lomb.
Thank you, Carlos Navarro —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreftymac (talk • contribs) 14:51, April 19 2007 (UTC)
- I've just went through the article and was able to find references for almost every statement. I added the references, deleted statements that I couldn't find references for, and corrected others. I believe that this article is now accurate as regards the information it covers. Regarding the Alcon article, it does mention the Systane recall: "In December 2006, Alcon announced a voluntary recall of Systane® Free LIQUID GEL lubricant eyedrops due to problems with possible contamination of the drops after opening. The issue was determined to be specific to the formulation of the product, and not due to any manufacturing processes." As regards the limited view of this article, yes, it is still a stub and there is much room for addition. Wikipedia is a volunteer effort and when editors have time, I'm sure that this article will grow. Bausch and Lomb goes back quite a ways, and there's sure to be enough information to make a longer article than one covering only the recent lawsuits and recalls. Sancho 17:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Anyone know German?
It seems like there might be some nice content over at http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bausch_%26_Lomb We should translate and source it. Sancho 16:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- I requested page translation for this material... now we wait. Sancho 16:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Site Layout
Would it be possible to list products made by the company, or would that be deleted?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Funnybs2004 (talk • contribs) 05:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- I suggest that you list, here on the article talk page, the products you want to add. Then wait for NPOV editors with no conflict of interest to reach consensus here. — Athaenara ✉ 06:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Recent external link additions
I don't think these links should be included because the official site is already linked to and these sites don't add to anything that is discussed in the article. Wikipedia:External links asks us to keep external links to a minimum. For this article, I think an appropriate set of external links to company websites would just be the single link to their main website, http://www.bausch.com. What do you think? Sancho 15:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I think that these links are relevant because they provide information about Bausch & Lomb's products that aren't available on the official site. This information could be useful for people researching this article that then want to dive deeper into specifics. I do agree that these aren't specifically talked about in the article but I do think that the fact that they are also "official" sites of Bausch & Lomb would indicate that they are extremely relevant to a section on Bausch and Lomb. Finally, I also think optimally we should work on making this section more robust (it appears lacking when you look at some other industry corporate sites in comparison, such as Alcon, AMO, etc. ) and list the products, which would then make these links more relevant. This is something that I'm willing to help out with. Thoughts? Lauraxp 17:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Lauraxp
- Thanks for your explanation... I still disagree though... Are there many more "secondary" sites of Bausch & Lomb? I could see this list just growing to be a link list to all of B & L's products. Wikipedia is not a shopping guide, so I think if we just mentioned in the article the list of products and services produced by Bausch & Lomb, and linked to the main site's subpages as reference, it would be good enough. The main site does have pages describing the information at the two sites listed above: http://www.tsv25.com's material is introduced and linked to at http://www.bausch.com/en_US/ecp/surgical/product/vitreoretinal/vitreoretinal.aspx and the ordering system at http://www.bauschsurgical.com is mentioned and linked to at http://www.bausch.com/en_US/ecp/surgical/product/refractive/surgery.aspx. Especially because it's described as an "ordering system", I don't think we should link to it.
- Also, there's a translation from the German article that I have yet to include into this article. It's available at Wikipedia:Translation/*/Months/May_2007 and is in the "proofreaders needed" stage. That should work on balancing the tone of the article. Sancho 16:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the help Sancho Lauraxp 16:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] History
This article needs to be rewritten, especially with regard to the history of Bausch & Lomb. Very little attention has been paid to B&L's industrial optics business, which was once their core competency. The sale of Bausch & Lomb's microscope division to Leica should definitely also be mentioned, with historical context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.69.225.39 (talk) 20:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
