 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. |
The Product and Marketing sections are particularly far from a neutral fact-based text. AllyD (talk) 17:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
It is challenging to understand how it is productive to provide virtually no clarity about your dissatisfaction while continuing to register it in the wake of edits to the page. Please make the edits you deem appropriate or provide information about what, in your opinion, is inappropriate. Rghojai (talk) 14:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)rghojai
- I already removed some of the most PR-speak material in this edit. But much of the rest of the content is laden with PR. For example "The brand statement brought about an evolution in the business's entire philosophy and a promise that Splash lived up to with the first 3D campaign of the region". What does that actually mean? It is typical brand consultant PR text but by no means clear, purposeful and - above all - encyclopaedic. In the Product section we learn that the company has buyers, which is an attribute in common with every other retail firm. And in the Awards section we learn - twice - that the firm has obtained significant awards. At least some of these are referenced, which is good, and would assist in discussing whether they were run of the mill industry awards. AllyD (talk) 19:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- While I note that you made some improvements in these edits, my view is that they don't justify removing the POV tag. And they certainly don't justify removing the COI or Orphan tags. AllyD (talk) 19:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)