Talk:Lean services

Subversive psychology/corporate PR abuse

The Toyota name appears to be prominently mentioned in all articles relating to lean six sigma as what appears to be See also-tier information, yet consistently is placed prominantly at the introduction of each article related to this subject. 198.52.166.242 (talk) 21:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Broken link, people!

The link at the end of the references (for the Lean Service Machine article?) does not work 2013-09-24) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezola (talk • contribs) 18:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Lean Sigma

I am worried that this section is basically just an advert to Honeywell. Any thoughts?

I edited that section a bit so that Honeywell is mentioned only once. If you know more companies that implement "Lean Six Sigma", please add them. 2aprilboy (talk) 14:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

undue weight / SPA promotion

I have removed most of the content, that has been added in recent years by various SPA accounts. Viewpoints should be presented in due weight and phrased in neutral uninvolved language. The excessive adulating coverage of one single author, and the link spam to the author's commercial sites, fails basic content guidelines - someone uninvolved (without an obvious "conflict of interest") should summarize the author's main points about the topic. GermanJoe (talk) 15:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Due to the ongoing promotional spam, I have removed all WP:BOOKSPAM from the article. Of course valid usages as inline references can be re-added by uninvolved editors, if the author is considered a topic expert, and such source information is usable in encyclopedic context and due weight. GermanJoe (talk) 17:47, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Revert of service quality details

Content needs to be written in an encyclopedic uninvolved tone. Analysis, advice and assessments from a first-person point of view (for example "We should ..."), that are commonly used in academic essays and articles, should be avoided in encyclopedic content (see WP:TONE for more details). A second minor issue: references with all bibliographic details should be added directly into the article instead of cross-linking to references in separate Wikipedia articles. Each article on its own should contain all necessary source information. Lastly, most of the added content wasn't really about "Lean services", but about a separate and only loosely-related aspect. Articles should stay focussed on their primary topic as far as possible. Please discuss here instead of re-inserting this content. GermanJoe (talk) 19:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Tone issues

• FROZEN: Anon191920, there are tone issues with your edits. Why are you repeatedly adding lean manufacturing? Why are you unnecessarily capitalizing? I removed "refers to" from the lead per WP:Refers. I'm not sure if the article is better before or after your edits. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:20, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• ANON: Fair point on capitalising, happy to sort that out (sorted). Thanks for your lingual help (will see if i can make the article flow better tomorrow, my intention is to add more sources and fix the intro etc). As for your view on what's best, before or after - feel free to escalate for further considerations if you see a need. My edit ('after version') was meant to in particular reduce WP:NOTOPINION and tighten up the factual backing to the text (WP:Reliable_sources). The 'before' is a text that has gone stale and ended up with lots of 'thoughts and ideas'. Great to work with you on refining this.

• QUESTION TO FROZEN: Ref. WP:Refers, starting an article with "Lean services ..." feels odd when it's already stated in the heading. It's repetitive isn't it? Is there any guidance on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anon191920 (talk • contribs) 01:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)