Talk:Gold-dipped roses

Note

It is a generic article not spam. If any link is spam please remove that link only. Gold dipped roses are not Rosa laevigata --Dreamoholic123 (talk) 06:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok I have removed some words that appeared promotion. you rewrite any sentence you think is promotional because I donot mind and do not want to promote any company. I have only written a generic article. Thank you. --Dreamoholic123 (talk) 06:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Sources

There are some problems with several (but not all) of the sources used in the article. I'll go through all 8 of them one by one.

1. Floral Management appears to be a good source. It's not available online, so it's hard to cite check, but I'm willing to assume good faith that it supports what it's being cited to support.
2. Jewelry Secrets appears to be a personal blog of someone who has worked in the jewelry industry but says about himself, "I certainly am no expert!" This self-published blog doesn't meet the criteria of a reliable source.
3. House Beautiful is another one that I can't cite check as its not available, but it appears to be fine. (Again, published sources are fine even if they are only available off-line).
4. Indianapolis Monthly is a monthly magazine. In your citation you don't tell us which issue you are citing. It makes it very hard to find the article you used if you just cite to the magazine and don't provide a full citation with the name of the article and the date of the issue. This is an offline source that I could probably get access to fairly easily if I had full citation information for it. Please expand.
5. The eternity rose website seems problematic to me. First of all it is an advertisement, pure and simple. The advertisement ends with an invitation to visit this Wikipedia article, including a link to the Wikipedia article. This implies that there may be a conflict of interest on the part of someone editing this article. I don't know for sure, but it's a reasonable suspicion. Plus it seems that the Wikipedia article is citing that page as a source for where it got its information, and that page in turn is citing Wikipedia. This is another problem with it.
6. Jones and Son is another page from jewelers selling this product, and it is very scarce on details of the process used. It doesn't have the same circular reference and COI issues as #5, and it doesn't seem to be a self published blog like #2, but I'd rather see a better source.
7. You reference a PDF on the Micro/Nano Technology Center website, but the link doesn't point to the .pdf and I cannot find it there. Again, a citation that better points to the actual page containing the information you are using would be appreciated.
8. Everything I said about Indianapolis Monthly applies to Kiplingers Personal Finance. The source itself is fine; a RS. However, you haven't given us enough information to make use of the source.

~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I have removed reference accused of spam. I am researching other references more. Sorry if my editing is troublesome but I will improve. --Dreamoholic123 (talk) 09:28, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The Indianapolis Monthly source now cites a specific issue, but I can't find where that issue describes production methods. I only see gold-dipped roses mentioned in passing.

Also, a patented process cannot possibly be a trade secret. Those are fundamentally different methods of protection. Perhaps some steps are patented and others are trade secrets? Or perhaps some methods are patented, while others are trade secrets? Chops (talk) 08:20, 2 October 2021 (UTC)