Template:Did you know nominations/ITM Power

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Harrias ^talk 14:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

ITM Power

(

)

... that ITM Power's profits increased 60-fold between the fiscal year of 2010–11 and the fiscal year of 2011–12?

Created/expanded by W.D. (talk), Theopolisme (talk), Dru of Id (talk). Nominated by W.D. (talk) at 15:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Article contains a {{notability}} template at the top. I don't think that it meets WP:CORP. I also think that the prose needs work done, even in the first sentence: "founded in June 2004." Also "Million" should not be capitalised. That's just in the lead. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 18:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

AFD is going on. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 19:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Needs a review now that it's been kept. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
I did some minor MOS clean-up but I came across one discrepancy that I would like to see some clarity on. In the lead, and backed by reference footnote #2, it says that the company was founded in 2004. In the history section, and backed by a source behind a paywall in footnote #4, it says that it was "created" in 2001. It also has the 2001 date in the infobox. I know you could play semantics between founded/created (is the "creation" date when the company was first thought up and the founding being the date of incorporation?) but I think at the very least this should be clarified in the article. I'm also wondering if this is the most "punchiest" hook that could be taken from the article? Sure a 60-fold increase in profit margin might excite a stock broker but would it intrigue the average reader as much? I know it is hard to make a topic like fuel cells "sexy" but, for me personally, I thought that facts like ITM being the first UK-based fuel cell company to go public or the plan to make the Isle of Wight completely carbon neutral were a little more eye-catching. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 20:33, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. I have full access to the source behind the paywall which says The Cambridge-based company was formed in June 2001... Their company history only starts at 2004, but doesn't actually say when the company was founded. I'll try and look for more sources to figure out which one is right. Also, the 2004 date was in the infobox, I changed it with the 2001 after I found that source that said 2001. I missed where it said 2004 in the prose though. Legoktm (talk) 02:41, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I found this which states they entered the market on 2004, however I haven't been able to find any sources to confirm/deny the 2001 statement. Legoktm (talk) 03:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I am inclined to go with the 2001 statement, but I don't know really.W.D. (talk) 17:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

So I went ahead and changed it to 2001. And here are some alt hooks:

ALT 1 ... that ITM Power was founded in 2001, but did not make a sale until 2010?
ALT 2 ... that ITM Power plans on making the Isle of Wight completely carbon neutral?

Thoughts? Legoktm (talk) 13:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to approve ALT2. Not only is it the more interesting hook, IMO, but I think we should avoid using the 2001 date while it is still somewhat in the air. The reference used for the 2001 date in the article is solid (and the article is well referenced) but, as we saw in this discussion, there are other sources that have a different date. In the grand scheme of things, I don't think this one minor issue is worth derailing the entire article but, again, I think we should avoid using it in the hook. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 18:48, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, and I agree with your reasoning of ALT2 over ALT1. Legoktm (talk) 18:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Cool, I am happy with ALT2 Now does it go straight into one of the queues? W.D. (talk) 19:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

While I like ALT2, the sources don't quite back it up. Yes, it's one of the companies involved, but the company isn't what's making the plan, it seems to be ECOIsland doing the planning, with ITM Power's technology a key part to it. Can you retool the ALT2 hook so it's more accurate? That would be great, and it should still be interesting. The wording needs to be neutral, too. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. How does this sound?

ALT 3 ... that ITM Power are developing technology to make the Isle of Wight carbon neutral?

How does that look? Legoktm (talk) 14:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

There are no outstanding issues with ALT3. New enough, long enough, fully sourced, no copyvio, neutral. GTG. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)