Draft talk:Exxentric

Moved to draft

See also: User_talk:Urbourbo § Exxentric_moved_to_draftspace

Utility of flywheel training

@Urbourbo: I'm curious about the inclusion of a long sentence on the benefits of flywheel training in this article on a corporation producing flywheels. The appropriate article for these claims seems to be Flywheel training (thank you for your work on this interesting training concept). For comparison, I wouldn't expect the article on Eleiko to enumerate the benefits of barbell exercise. Draken Bowser (talk) 20:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

@Draken Bowser: Thanks for looking into this draft and sharing your concern. Looking through this again now, I believe you are right. I've now limited the sentence and moved it to a subordinate clause in the sentence first mentioning flywheel training (see diff). What do you think, would this work? All the best, /Urbourbo (talk) 21:44, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it gets the point across quickly while explaining to the reader why zero-G equipment came to be used at ground level. I like it. Draken Bowser (talk) 22:03, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Draken Bowser:, are there any other edits required for this article to be ready for publishing in your opinion? /Urbourbo (talk) 16:10, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

As far as I can assess, there are no quality issues concerning article text atm. Unfortunately I'm agnostic as to what exactly is required for a corporation to pass GNG on enwp. But I do believe this last modification has lowered the risk of the draft being declined as mere promo. Best of luck! Draken Bowser (talk) 16:38, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

OK thanks for your reply! I'm somewhat of a beginner myself with regards to the draftspace process on enwp. Seems I'll just have to wait and hope that someone interested takes the time to consider and possibly publish the draft then. All the best! /Urbourbo (talk) 17:26, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Notability

For anyone verifying the sources of this draft, the key Dagens Industri print article can easily be found by searching for the subject name in their archive although it doesn't seem to be possible to link directly. /Urbourbo (talk) 22:22, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

@Stuartyeates: Thanks for your comments when declining this draft submission. I'd be happy to look into what could be done to improve the article if you could just help me clarify your concerns.

1. First, could you please confirm that you understand Swedish and have assessed the core references from Dagens Industri etc? I would say that in particular that DI article very much provides significant coverage in a highly independent and reliable source.
2. Secondly, could you please clarify what sources you assess as not being independent so that I have a chance to verify or change them?

Thanks, /Urbourbo (talk) 09:08, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Lets start with references 1-4 not being independent. Some of the academic research appears to be non-independent because they're the research that the product is based on. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:17, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

@Stuartyeates: Thanks, not sure I understand re ref 1-4. To my understanding they are just official databases with records of confirmed trademarks from USPTO (1-3) and officially reported financial data from UC (4). How could either of these not be independent? Re the research, I can have a closer look, but I don't think either of these were paid by the company or are otherwise depending on the company's success. Also most from pretty decent institutions I believe. Any particular study that caught your attention? /Urbourbo (talk) 13:15, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Links to patents (like court documents and other primary soruces) are usually listed in a 'further reading' or 'links' section rather than using them as sources. The NASA and ESA research is the main issue, since the article says there's a funding stream involved there. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:00, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Stuartyeates:. With regards to the primary sources, I've updated myself a bit and as per WP:PRIMARYCARE, primary sources (such as the business' own website) can indeed be acceptable for "simple, objective descriptions", which I would argue is the case here (although I'd say USPTO and UC are preferrable to the company website). This said, I'd be happy to add those sources as "further reading" or "links" section as well if you want? With regards to NASA/ESA, that study was made in 1994 whereas the article's subject was founded in 2011. Would you say that the NASA/ESA study still is not independent vs Exxentric? /Urbourbo (talk) 08:33, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

(a) patents should not be used for _anything_ (except perhaps to prove the existence of filed patents) since they're primary sources which are routinely crafted to be opaque. (b) The NASA/ESA funding / study was presumably to a pre-cursor to Exxentric, so I'd say it was not independent. I cannot stress enough that the best way to solve these issues is to find more sources (even if they're not as independent as might be hoped). One of the founders is linked to a university, does it have a research repository which might contain relevant content? Stuartyeates (talk) 09:34, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

(a) With regards to the patent office references to the trademark registrations, they are now simply removed. Their purpose was just to confirm the product brands' statuses as registered trademarks. We might of course specify this in the article text, but might be giving too much of weight to this issue. Hope this helps. (b) With regards to the NASA article, I must say I still fail to see the logic. Basically, NASA commissioned a study in the 1990s, which ended up in a patent. And Exxentric was founded the same year when the original patent ceased to be valid. There were no financial connections or any other dependencies between the NASA study and the company. Also, the ownership of the company has nothing to do with NASA. Even theoretically/hypothetically, I cannot see how one could even suspect any dependency there. That said, I don't think that the NASA study is crucial for the article, and I have now removed it. /Urbourbo (talk) 22:29, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Besides some existing references being questioned (and removed) above, the main concern of the template added to the article was that it "needs multiple published sources that are: in-depth, reliable, secondary, [and] strictly independent of the subject". With regards to this concern, I asked above if the Swedish language references had been considered, which was not answered. Hence, let me clarify that I do believe that primarily the source by Rönnlund meets all of these four criteria. It is indeed an in-depth article (spread over two pages in the print edition), in a reliable source (the largest Swedish business daily newspaper), it's secondary, and strictly independent. For any Swedish-fluent editor there should be no doubts about this source. Several other Swedish sources meet all criteria except possibly in-depth although their main focus is on its products and founder (like Wagner, Lydén). Might be valuable with the assessment by any Swedish admin on this? Thanks in advance, /Urbourbo (talk) 22:29, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

The mentioned key sources are now added to a separate References section to hopefully clarify somewhat. Now resubmitted, hoping for a second review. All the best, Urbourbo (talk) 13:01, 21 March 2023 (UTC)