User talk:CorporateM/Invisalign

Suggestions

• Comma in first sentence after Invisalign  Done
• Same paragraph, no comma needed (I think) after 'scanner'  Done, though I'm not actually 100% sure which is grammatically correct
• in 'movements are provided' - should be is, not are  Done
• in 'that connects the aligner to the tooth', connect seems the wrong word, as the appliance is easily removable  Done - it appears the source says they are "bonded" onto the teeth. I presumed they "latched" onto the aligner in some way, but it sounds they are just used to push off of the aligner. The source doesn't explicitly say how they work.

--Hordaland (talk) 23:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Hordaland! CorporateM (Talk) 00:13, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Anthony

• "On average they are worn for 13.5 months." Does this mean each aligner is in place for 13.5 months, or does the whole aligning process, wth a succession of different aligners, take on average 13.5 months?

Ah. That's made clear in the preceding sentence. Still, I'd be inclined to change this to "Each aligner is intended to be worn 20 hours a day for two-to-three weeks, and on average the aligning process takes 13.5 months." No big deal, though. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done Anthonyhcole I replaced it with "treatment period". An expert at Align felt "it depends" was the most accurate for number of aligners or treatment period, but these averages are prolific in the source material, so I felt they needed repeating here. CorporateM (Talk) 14:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Review of article and history

Hey CorporateM, I think the origins and establishment section reads ok but the recent developments and background reads very much like an advertising webpage. This article, in general, suffers because it attempts to straddle the space between describing what claims to be a novel technique in orthodontics and the company that predominantly provides it. I think it would be greatly improved if the entire article was written about the company, using a business/company template rather than it's current state. Someone could make the argument that this article should be merged with orthoCAD techniques or removable orthodontic appliances, both of which would apply. Ping me if you'd like any further feedback. Ian Furst (talk) 20:59, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

@Ian Furst thanks! I noticed there are no GA pages about medical products to compare, but with software articles, I typically write the page with a format/title based on whichever is most notable (the software or the company) and include a Background or Development section on software pages to provide context about the company that develops it. I found that to be the case here - that Invisalign was extremely notable, whereas Align Technology is less so. I think the reason the Recent history section may come off as promotional is because of the "version history" (making an analogy to software pages again). I often get the feedback in GA reviews that this should be in a "Products" section rather than corporate history. I'd like to get user:Anthonyhcole's feedback if he/she is available, then see what I can do to adjust any NPOV problems. CorporateM (Talk) 17:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing that Invisalign is more notable than Align Technology, but I think it's clearer if the article is about the company (sections: Products, History, Operations) than if it's about the product. For example, that the company was founded in a garage, that the company was losing money for a while, that the founders left, that there was a lawsuit with a new company started by the founders - all these are largely irrelevant to someone interested in Invisalign (and thus of questionable value for inclusion in the article), but the reverse is not true: almost anything to do with Invisalign is of interest to someone interested in the company. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 03:50, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks John Broughton. Are you saying we should rename the article to "Align Technology" or just rename the "Background" section to something more in-line with how we do org-articles, like "Operations" and move some of it to a Products section. CorporateM (Talk) 04:16, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done How's that? CorporateM (Talk) 05:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't realize that this was part of a larger article. I suggest rolling the page back to this version. As far as I'm concerned, the "History" section is fine - I'm not seeing any advertising aspect to it, it's just the story of a successful company, with its struggles well described - and is ready to be inserted into the article. I'll do that if no one has any objections, including removing the excessive detail in the top section (see WP:HEADING.

I'm less convinced about the other section, "background". Part of this is just the title - maybe it should be "Manufacturer", and part is the inclusion of treatment plans, which seem to me to be better suited for the "Treatment process" part of the article. Can you point to another article where "Background" is used in a way similar to how you're suggesting it be done here? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:44, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

@John Broughton If you would like to make the article about Align, rather than Invisalign, there is no need for a Background section, because most of that information can go in the infobox as I've done just now. When I noticed the confusion about it being the entire article, I just wrote a Lead, added an infobox and added the Treatment Process section, which essentially makes it the entire article, except for the huge "Advantages and disadvantages" section in the current article, which is filled with original synthesis, original research, etc. etc. for medical claims. Although there are some scraps of salvageable material, I would just take the mop to it. But I'll also be working on that material later on. The Lead I wrote is much more... "sterile" than the current, but that is because the current lead has obviously undue and POV-laden content. CorporateM (Talk) 16:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

@CorporateM: Well, yes, the page User:CorporateM/Invisalign can easily be made into an article about the company, but that doesn't resolve what seems to me (now; again, I missed this earlier) that there is a great deal of material at Invisalign that can't be rolled into an article called Align Technology, nor should it be. So if we're going to keep most of the detailed information already in Invisalign, the information about the product, then what is the relationship between two separate articles? How much overlap is there going to be, and how exactly does that get handled? (It's wrong to delete all historical information from the Invisalign article, for example. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 03:43, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

@John Broughton Oh, I think I misunderstood; you are saying we should have two articles? One on Align Technology and another on Invisalign? If that's the case, I can take out a lot of the product information and submit an article on Align to AfC. CorporateM (Talk) 14:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

@CorporateM: Of the three choices - company only, product only, or both company and product - I think the first (only one article, about the company, with some product information, of course) is the worst, because a lot of good information about the product would no longer fit anywhere. What I was saying was that the two-article solution is challenging because one has to decide how to handle overlapping information - the product article has to have at least a bit of info on the company (even if done via WP:SS), and the company article has to have some information about the products (though mostly in the historical section, so less of an issue).

It's your call as to which way to go; I think either two articles or one (product) article is fine. [With one article, I still question how the "background" section would fit in (see my immediately prior posting).] -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:49, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

@John Broughton How's that? I would prefer to keep just one article on Invisalign in order to follow my own advice at WP:ORGVANITY. As it is with most organizations, they would prefer separate pages and I advised that this is one area where Wikipedia's and the client's desires almost always conflict and we really need to stick to just one page on whichever is most notable. I just created an "Align Technology" section, though it would be just as good as "Corporate operations" or any other name. I do like keeping the corporate and product history in a single History section, because splitting them apart would make each narrative jumpy and scattered with a lot of content that doesn't clearly fit in one or the other. CorporateM (Talk) 23:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)