Talk:SunPower

All-black

There are a great many sources which suggest that the appropriate description is "all-black", rather than "all-back"[1] -- Johnfos 00:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they are all black. That's because of the all-back-contact design (no silver wiring on the front); [2]. Dicklyon 04:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Promotional statements

This article strikes me as being highly promotional. Two of its four paragraphs read more as marketing-style project announcements than an encyclopedia article, and one of those--saying, "SunPower will invest over $4.4 billion in its Philippines plant..."--has a contradictory reference link that currently says, "SunPower to invest $570M in Philippine facility" (that was the headline presented to me today without my signing up for access to the full article). All of the External links seem entirely self-promotional--so much so, that eight of the nine links are to articles at the RenewableEnergyAccess.com domain, where each article page states that SunPower Corporation is "A RenewableEnergyAccess.com Marketing Partner". The ninth link is merely another corporate announcement that was apparently provided to--and then repackaged by--a news organization; every statement in the article is attributed to SunPower or one of its employees.

Consequently, I am removing the paragraph about the $4.4 billion investment and am removing the entire External links section. The References section already has a link to the company's website, so no separate External links section is needed.

Someone else could well review the remainder of the article, which seems to me to be supported only by statements that appear to come directly from SunPower or its representatives, according to the reference links.

--rich<Rich Janis 03:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)>

I just reveted another such anon peacock edit. Sorry, I said "remove" instead of "revert" in my edit summary. Dicklyon 17:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I still think this article is too promotional in its nature. Phrases like "..., the company said" with no references sound like they've been lifted from a press releases. I decided not to make the necessary edits in tense and wording because I thought any changes might make the article look less biased, and that itself could be unfair. I think it needs more independant research than I am able to invest. I write this not only as a relative newbie, but also as someone about to spend a lot of money on Sunpower PV panels. I was disappointed by the unbalanced nature of the article here. Parkywiki (talk) 01:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

still promotional

It is still promotional, and I added an "advertisement" tag.

There is also a major problem with statements about the company's products having higher efficiency are sourced only to the company site. This is not acceptable. Similarly, the information about the projects that use their product is mostly sourced also to the company. DGG ( talk ) 06:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Connected Contributor

Wikipedian peeps,

In an attempt to align with Wikipedia guidelines/best practices and talk comments, I have made the following revisions to the page:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SunPower&diff=750291870&oldid=742007601
  
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SunPower&diff=750992079&oldid=750291870
  
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SunPower&diff=750992162&oldid=750992079
  
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SunPower&diff=750997322&oldid=750992162
  
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SunPower&diff=750998142&oldid=750997322
  
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SunPower&diff=750999214&oldid=750998142
  
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SunPower&diff=751000173&oldid=750999214
  
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SunPower&diff=751000274&oldid=751000173
  

Edits include: updating outdated logo, finding third party sources for many of the self-published references (when able) and addressing the advertisement/neutral language on the page. Please check these revisions and suggest any changes! Jmmcdaniel (talk) 19:46, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I really, really appreciate that you're being transparent about your COI, so thank you. Generally, it's best to propose changes on the talk page first, and then include a Template:Request edit, which you might want to do in the future. I've preserved some changes you've made, but not others, and it's far too easy for things to fall between the cracks in situations like this. It gets messy quickly. It also helps to edit incrementally, which is a skill that takes a little practice.

The changes you made were in good faith, but there are some problems:

• The updates to the number employees did not have any sources. This makes it original research. It's a minor point, but for some reason I don't get, these numbers tend to get fudged with a lot, so a source is very useful. It's better to be out-of-date and accurate than up-to-date and wrong.
• While removing press releases was a positive step, it was far from the main reason the article reads like an advertisement. The language used throughout the article includes a large number of buzzwords and PR-speak. "...a leading global provider..." is one example that jumps out at me. WP:WTW and WP:UPE are useful guides to spotting these problems.
• Replacing press releases with stories hosted on other sites isn't as easy as it seems. Renewable Energy World is an example of this problem. It's about page blurs the line between actual journalism and "Internet Brand Building" and they only have a couple of editors vs. a team of marketing consultants. Stories like this one, which do not have a byline, are almost certainly repackaged press releases, and should be treated accordingly. Stories with a byline aren't necessarily any better, either. Niche B2B News sites suffer from a glut of this, and it doesn't look like PennWell is an exception. I suppose it's better than PRWire or the company's own site, but only barely.
• Since I'm explaining why the article looks like an ad, the "Cells" section should be trimmed. It's too much like a product brochure, and too sparsely sourced. If there are reliable, independent sources commenting on the manufacturing of the Maxeon vs. other cells, they could be used. Otherwise, it would be better to link to solar panel and solar cell rather than rehash all of this here. The added length contributes to the promotional appearance of the article.

Hopefully that's helpful. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 23:19, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Review of SunPower page

My name is Sanah and I work for SunPower. As shown in my annotations here almost the entire page is cited to personal blogs, broken links, SunPower.com, or nothing at all. I want to suggest this is a WP:TNT situation and ask that we stub the page. My hope is that - once the current page is stubbed - that will pave the way for new content to help rebuild it with proper sources. Because I have a WP:COI, I'm asking that an objective editor consider my request to stub the page. Please let me know if there is any way I can be of further assistance. Best regards. Sanahsue (talk) 18:22, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@Sanahsue: You may want to mark this request as an edit request and add the relevant edit request template so that editors who perform such work are alerted to your suggestion. -- Longhair\^talk 18:29, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@Sanahsue: Hi! Thanks for declaring your COI and being cautious with your editing. A Wikipedia article about a NASDAQ-traded company founded in the 80s, like yours, can be expected to contain more notable and properly cited material than the length of a stub. And indeed, at least one of your draft removals seems excessive. Are you paid for your edits? Learning Wikipedia policies and guidelines (WP:RULES) takes some time and I have no time to teach you. I only looked at the first three sentences in your draft. The ones without citation are OK to remove under WP:BURDEN (but only if it isn't sourced in the article body either, see WP:LEADCITE). The first sentence, however, should be kept under WP:ABOUTSELF (part of WP:V), which states that self-published material is OK for credible claims. I suggest you read all of WP:V and amend your draft accordingly. Also, a sentence being sourced with a dead link is no reason for its removal. Broken links are no problem. Information sourced with dead links can almost always be saved from an online archive, e.g. by checking the following website: www.web.archive.org/*/INSERTDEADLINKHERE/; see H:AAS and WP:404. Only delete information that is entirely unsourced (and requires an inline source - don't cite that the sky is blue). I suggest you not only remove text from the article but also expand it with some info and pictures. Keeping in mind the WP:MOS including MOS:PUFFERY.‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎ 19:37, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I think there is a misunderstanding. I do not want the page to be a stub long-term. I want to remove poorly-sourced or un-cited content in order to replace it with properly-cited content. I did check each of the broken links on Archive.org, but each produced an error message. I know a primary source from the founder may be ok for basic information, but I think citing to independent secondary sources - as is done in the proposed replacement - would be better. Sanahsue (talk) 15:07, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@Sanahsue: OK I have done the easy bit - that is the delete. But I am going to leave it to someone else to look at your proposed new content. But if you have an interesting factory pic on Wikimedia Commons ping me. Have a nice day.Chidgk1 (talk) 17:42, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Request to Add Spin-off

In compliance with WP:COI, I'd like to request an impartial editor consider adding the following to the end of the "Recent History" section to update the page with a recent spin-off of a substantial portion of SunPower's business:

In February 2022, SunPower investor TotalEnergies purchased SunPower's commercial and industrial divisions for $250 million, as part of SunPower's transition to focusing on residential installations.

Pinging @Cerebellum: and @Chidgk1:, who responded to my prior, larger request. FYI - I went ahead and updated the infobox data as well, as a non-controversial edit. Jillianhailey (talk) 18:14, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Please don't ping me any more as I am no longer involved with this article.Chidgk1 (talk) 06:05, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I'll do it. It seems an appropriate inclusion. MartinezMD (talk) 17:38, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Recent Edits

Hi. My name is Jillian and I work for SunPower. The following criticism was recently added without a citation:

"Sunpower uses Enphase microinverters in all AC module products, with a custom communications protocol not compatible with standard Enphase systems."

This is factually accurate, but it's the kind of detailed product specification that I wouldn't expect to see in an encyclopedia. I suggest it either be deleted, or have a "citation needed" tag added for an inevitable deletion later on after giving editors a chance to cite it.

Pinging @Chidgk1: and @MartinezMD: who participated last time I chimed in a year ago. Jillianhailey (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure I would label the entry a criticism. I do wonder where the information came from given it's an anon editor. I'll label it as needing a cite. MartinezMD (talk) 18:46, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Sunpower purchased Blue Raven Solar

In October of 2021, Sunpower purchased Blue Raven Solar.

https://newsroom.sunpower.com/2021-10-05-SunPower-Acquires-Blue-Raven-Solar,-One-of-the-Fastest-Growing-Residential-Solar-Providers-in-the-U-S 71.70.171.146 (talk) 12:54, 26 October 2023 (UTC)