Talk:Black Phoenix Alchemy Lab

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)