Talk:Black Phoenix Alchemy Lab

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Tone and NPOV

This article seems to be written with a heavily promotional tone. It goes out of its way to assert notability (even calls itself "notable" four times!) and is written in a rather glowing tone. Much, if not all, of the popularity section needs to be trimmed or removed as being largely irrelevant to the article and coming across more as "fluff" material to cast the company in as positive a light as it can.

I am tagging this and bringing it up in the talk instead of making the modifications myself due to heavy editing by a couple of editors who are clearly interested in the topic, and wanting to allow them a chance to voice their opinions on the topic before I take a chainsaw to the article. Arkyan • ^(talk) 17:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, this article has come a long way since it was deleted for lack of notability (and later restored). I think the authors were just trying to stress the subject's notability, and may have gone a little overboard with the word "notable". Firsfron of Ronchester 18:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to the anon who did some work to clean up the tone of this article, but I don't think it's ready to have the cleanup tag removed, so I have reinstated it. Just to make sure everyone is on the same page, it'd be great if you (or anyone) commented here on the talk page prior to removing the tag to make sure the concerns are adequately addressed. Thanks! Arkyan • ^(talk) 23:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Arkyan. As one of the ppl who did a lot of work on this page, I'm wondering if you can be a bit more specific about what you feel the issues here are. Much of the information you are feeling should be taken out was added at the request of an Admin (Firsfron) to demonstrate it's suitability for a wiki entry. The information has pretty much been pared down to either facts or specific information provided by external and neutral sources. So, I am definitely willing to help edit the article, if you can point me to some edits that won't go against the work that I did under Firsfron's direction. As for it being too "fluff" - I'm a bit confused by what you are looking for there. Does an article have to have something negative in it to justify having something positive? I'm also a little confused and (to be honest frustrated) by your "take a chainsaw to the article" comment, as you seem to just want to make the article less "positive" for the sake of just not wanting it to be positive, which I don't understand. I followed the direction of several other articles re: companies and etailers. Are they all wrong? I am honestly trying to understand what you are thinking and want this article to be as accurate as it can. So, if you could just let me know a bit more about what you are thinking and why, I'll do what I can. Thanks! Jeko 20:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

There has been a number of edits since I last looked at the article and it is in much better shape now. Essentially what concerned me was the use of overly flowery phrases that ultimately made the article sound promotional. Take a look at our neutral point of view policy at WP:NPOV for a fuller discussion on the topic, but basically, we want articles to sound neutral, and not make it seem as if we are either approving or disapproving of a topic. This doesn't necessarily mean adding in negative to counter the positive, but just altering the language to a neutral voice and based on fact not perspective. For an example of a change in the right direction, one editor changed a line reading "Black Phoenix Alchemy Lab enjoys a notable - and what some consider an uniquely obsessive - following through the Internet" to "Black Phoenix Alchemy Lab enjoys a sizeable following through the Internet". They both contain the same fact, but the second is presented in a much more neutral, factual tone without containing "perspective" language such as "what some consider".

I hope that clears up any confusion. If not or if there is anything else I can make clear for you don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. In the meantime, I feel that the recent edits have done enough to remove the unecessary language from the article and will remove the tag. Thanks to all of you for your efforts. Arkyan • ^(talk) 22:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Arkyan, I appreciate your help and insight. I can see where you were coming from, and I'm glad we were able to resolve the concerns. Thanks again for the help! Jeko 14:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)