@Jai49: Thank you for your assistance in reviewing this article. The removal of extraneous external links is an agreeable edit and my mistake as I was only attempting to be thorough. However, I'm not sure what particular sentences or phrasings you find problematic, in terms of Neutral Point of View, Opinion and Puffery; I did attempt to write neutrally and believe every statement is sufficiently represented with significant coverage in the multiple independent, reliable secondary-sourced news article links provided. Can we discuss these points further? I would like to keep my articles and edits in good standing with the greater community. Thank you. Pauliepg (talk) 20:20, 8 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
- Yes, you may discuss to improve your article. Jai49 (talk) 06:34, 21 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
- Great: I'm not sure what particular sentences or phrasings you find problematic, in terms of Neutral Point of View, Opinion and Puffery; I did attempt to write neutrally and believe every statement is sufficiently represented with significant coverage in the multiple independent, reliable secondary-sourced news article links provided. In addition, another user has since edited with comment "A bit better? Advertisement + irrelevant content removed". I was hoping you might be able to help me understand what specific phrasings in the article you continue to find issue with? Pauliepg (talk) 14:54, 21 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
