User talk:Betty Merm/Vivid Racing

Vivid Racing article questions

I copied these questions from my talk page; this is a better forum for them, I think. I also edited them slightly, but no change in meaning. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I thought since you offered, I would first ask you about my article changes. I did look at the inclusion guidelines and at a couple of the Category:Automotive motorsports and performance companies, as you suggested. Here are my questions:

1. In the first paragraph of my article in red is "citation needed", I think it says. Is a citation here a reference or what do I need there?
2. The History section seems just informational to me. Are there any deletions necessary there to you?
3. The Shop seems informational as to what their company offers mehanically for upgrading cars or do you think otherwise?
4. Other Business might need the section taken out "AP has established.....AP brand is recognized globally" and would this then make it less spammy?
5. The same as #4 for the last sentence starting "In combination...."
6. Is the Advertising and Publicity section something that is not acceptable? I thought the references to the magazines, car rally, etc. made it notable.

In reading other articles about businesses and their products, I'm having a hard time seeing how much of my article is too much advertising.Betty Merm (talk) 22:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, before I get started, two overall comments. One, you need to identify at least two sources that meet our requirements for reliable sources (RS): independent third-party sources that are about Vivid Racing, rather than just mention them in passing. Otherwise, the article is likely to be nominated and deleted at the articles for deletion process even after you put some work into removing the promotional tone. Many sources listed in the article now are either broken or don't meet WP:RS. Two, the article does seem very spammy to me, and I'm not sure how productive a conversation we can have about promotional tone if you don't think this article has one. I see you haven't changed anything from the speedily deleted article. To be clear, I userfied this for you so you could work to make it less promotional, not because I disagreed with the idea that it was too promotional. Is it possible you are perhaps too close to the subject, and that's why you don't see the promotional tone? If so, you should read our conflict of interest guidelines, and consider waiting for someone else to write the article.

To answer your specific questions:

1. This tag is saying that someone disputes the sentence "The company is globally recognized within their field for their distribution, sales, and installation of high-performance aftermarket automobile industry parts." An article needs to be based on verifiable, reliable sources. Disputed claims need to be sourced to independent 3rd party reliable sources if they are to remain; it won't work to find someplace where Vivid Racing says they're globally recognized for this.
2. The history section isn't overly promotional (in my opinion), but it too suffers from a lack of reliable sourcing. How do we know what's in this section is true? How can we verify it?
3. Yes, this section to me is worded very promotionally. We are not trying to put the shop in a good light, we are trying to neutrally inform the reader.
4. That would be a start, but still, see my comments above.
5. Yes, that should come out.
6. In my opinion, the section could stay, and the sourcing appears better, but it too needs a less promotional tone. Some of the links are dead.

The best suggestion I can make is, before you spend much time on this, find someone on WT:CARS, and ask them if they think this is a notable subject, and whether they have any more suggestions. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for your feedback. I'll work on this and find someone on WT:CARS, as you suggest. Appreciate it.Betty Merm (talk) 17:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)