Talk:Lean services

Latest comment: 4 years ago by 198.52.166.242 in topic Subversive psychology/corporate PR abuse

Subversive psychology/corporate PR abuse

edit

The Toyota name appears to be prominently mentioned in all articles relating to lean six sigma as what appears to be See also-tier information, yet consistently is placed prominantly at the introduction of each article related to this subject. 198.52.166.242 (talk) 21:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Broken link, people!

edit

The link at the end of the references (for the Lean Service Machine article?) does not work 2013-09-24) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezola (talkcontribs) 18:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Lean Sigma

edit

I am worried that this section is basically just an advert to Honeywell. Any thoughts?

I edited that section a bit so that Honeywell is mentioned only once. If you know more companies that implement "Lean Six Sigma", please add them. 2aprilboy (talk) 14:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

undue weight / SPA promotion

edit

I have removed most of the content, that has been added in recent years by various SPA accounts. Viewpoints should be presented in due weight and phrased in neutral uninvolved language. The excessive adulating coverage of one single author, and the link spam to the author's commercial sites, fails basic content guidelines - someone uninvolved (without an obvious "conflict of interest") should summarize the author's main points about the topic. GermanJoe (talk) 15:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Due to the ongoing promotional spam, I have removed all WP:BOOKSPAM from the article. Of course valid usages as inline references can be re-added by uninvolved editors, if the author is considered a topic expert, and such source information is usable in encyclopedic context and due weight. GermanJoe (talk) 17:47, 8 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Revert of service quality details

edit

Content needs to be written in an encyclopedic uninvolved tone. Analysis, advice and assessments from a first-person point of view (for example "We should ..."), that are commonly used in academic essays and articles, should be avoided in encyclopedic content (see WP:TONE for more details). A second minor issue: references with all bibliographic details should be added directly into the article instead of cross-linking to references in separate Wikipedia articles. Each article on its own should contain all necessary source information. Lastly, most of the added content wasn't really about "Lean services", but about a separate and only loosely-related aspect. Articles should stay focussed on their primary topic as far as possible. Please discuss here instead of re-inserting this content. GermanJoe (talk) 19:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Tone issues

edit
  • ANON: Fair point on capitalising, happy to sort that out (sorted). Thanks for your lingual help (will see if i can make the article flow better tomorrow, my intention is to add more sources and fix the intro etc). As for your view on what's best, before or after - feel free to escalate for further considerations if you see a need. My edit ('after version') was meant to in particular reduce WP:NOTOPINION and tighten up the factual backing to the text (WP:Reliable_sources). The 'before' is a text that has gone stale and ended up with lots of 'thoughts and ideas'. Great to work with you on refining this.