Talk:Outotec

Notability

GSS added the tag that Outotec might not be notable enough for Wikipedia so let's start a discussion about the issue. Talouselämä magazine studies the 500 biggest companies in Finland every year by their revenue and this year Outotec was number 59. The news is behind a pay wall unfortunately but I could take a screenshot to prove this if needed. Is this single fact enough to prove the notability or what kind of evidence should I start digging? Jjanhone (talk) 13:10, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

You need to start from removing unreliable and self-published sources and put some reliable, secondary sources that establish notability. Most of the sources are not in English so I'm unsure about their reliability and depth. Please see WP:CORPDEPTH for more. Thank you – GSS (talk|c|em) 14:13, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! I've removed most of the self-published refs, see [3]. Is this enough already? And the Finnish sources I've used here are from the biggest news media in Finland, independent of Outotec.Jjanhone (talk) 19:28, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

How about now, is there still some refs that are seen unreliable? Jjanhone (talk) 10:39, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi all, I am a native Finnish speaker and knowing the media landscape in Finland a little bit, I can state that in my eyes the used Finnish language media sources are from independent and respected publishers.Qtea (talk) 10:54, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Qtea! Is this enough evidence for you GSS? :) If not how about you Finnusertop&Mika1h, can you confirm that the refs I've used are ok? I would like to get the warning "Some of this article's listed sources may not be reliable." removed now that the notability warning has been removed. And thank you for that GSS&Finnusertop. :) Jjanhone (talk) 13:19, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I'd be happy to remove the tag about unreliable sources, unless someone can name sources in the article that are actually unreliable. The bulk of sources used are from reputable Finnish media. A few are by Outotec themselves, which is not ideal and should be replaced where possible (and even then, that would be {{Third-party}}, not reliability, and isn't a big issue with the present article). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the tag. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:45, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Paid contributions tag

A paid editor made contributions to this article, and has disclosed that fact on this page, therefore the paid contributions template is a matter of fact and does not require discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:46, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

According to the policy "if you place the Paid tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article." As a paid editor I'm not allowed to remove the tag myself, but if any volunteer editor thinks that the neutral point of view of the article is ok, they are free to remove the tag as told in the Template:Paid contributions instructions: "If you do not start this discussion, then any editor is justified in removing the tag without warning."Jjanhone (talk) 17:14, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello Jns4eva. Is there something in the article you think is non-neutral? Please explain as required by the Paid template.Jjanhone (talk) 09:03, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Hey there! I did not place the tag (I merely restored it) but after reading the article, I can confirm that there is multiple instances of non neutrality in the article:

• The partners section. Rather than stating a fact, such as Outotec formed a partnership with Newcrest Mining, it proceeds to mention how "Newcrest is among the world's leading producers of gold and silver." This is an example of WP:PEACOCK, whether or not it was meant to be.
• Another would again be where it is mentioned that Outotec collaborated with Thermo-System GmbH "to market the company's low-energy drying solutions", which is not neutral (it should be something along the lines of "Outotec signed a marketing agreement with GmbH"). To be honest, I would recommend the partner section be merged into the history and trimmed only to include relevant facts.
• The "Patents and Inventions" section should similarly be merged into the history of the organization or cut as it also contains buzzwords and WP:PEACOCK. An example of non neutrality could be the sentence "It strengthened its expertise in the area by acquiring German company Lurgi at the beginning of the 2000s." This should read "The company acquired Lurgi on (year)" or something similar. Another example is "Outotec set a record for patent applications in 2012, when it applied for 70 new patents and was granted 286 national patents, making it the fourth-largest company in Finland in terms of patent applications".
• The intro should be a brief summary of the company and what they do. For example, "Outotec's technologies are used for applications such as producing..." should be summarized, cut or moved into the main article as it appears promotional, rather than stating a fact (such as "Outotec produced base materials" or "Outotec created technology that was used to process raw materials"). While not as egregious, the sentence "Outotec's environment and energy business has grown alongside its traditional ore and metal technology" is also non neutral (it should be something like "Outotec provides enviroment and energy services and mining technology" with a reliable source).
• There are numerous instances of the article being written in present tense, which implies Outotec is still functional (and appears promotional), such as in the Organization section. "The business area focuses on minerals processing for the mining industry, conducting a range of works such as preliminary suitability studies, as well as implementing entire production plants and supporting them throughout the various phases in their lifecycles". The last part of that sentence is very non neutral. This sentence could be shortened to give a brief summary of what the company does and it needs to be rewritten to be in past tense.
• While this is not an English company nor is it against the rules, nearly all of the sources are non English and I cannot verify the information without a translation.

While this list is not inclusive, it's a few examples of how this article is not neutral and why the paid editor tag should still remain. A lot of sections contain fluff words or can be merged into the history section of the company and from what I can see, this article needs a major rewrite to conform to neutrality. I hope this suffices User:Jjanhone and if you have any questions or comments, please feel free to reply and let me know! Jns4eva (talk) 19:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting Jns4eva, this list is very useful, concrete and helpful! Jjanhone (talk) 04:49, 26 March 2021 (UTC)