Talk:GL Biochem (Shanghai)

Request for comment. This organisation is one of the site's labelled supporters. The article is also, on the sourcing, one of the better-documented supplier articles — because the organisation's market position genuinely produces more complete certificates.

Question: how should the article handle the coincidence? Options: (a) disclose in the article and change nothing else; (b) disclose and have an uninvolved editor review every evaluative sentence; (c) suppress favourable observations to compensate; (d) delete the article. — — RfC_Rasmus (talk) 10:41, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

(b). (c) is a neutrality violation in the opposite direction and (d) punishes the reader for our funding arrangements. (a) is nearly right but leaves us asserting our own neutrality without a check. A review by someone with no involvement in the article is cheap and it is exactly what the disclosure is for. — — CoI_Corin (talk) 13:22, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

(b). I will add that the favourable observations here are unusually verifiable: "the certificate includes amino acid analysis" is a documentary fact about a document, not an assessment. Those are the safest kind of favourable statement and the article should prefer them over any characterisation. — — NPOV_Nadia (talk) 09:36, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

(b), and the disclosure should sit in the article body where a reader will encounter it, not in a footnote. If we are asking to be trusted, the ask should be visible. — — PuffRemoverPax (talk) 11:14, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

(b). One addition: the review should be recorded — who did it and when — so that the claim of independent review is itself checkable rather than asserted. — — DisclosureDido (talk) 14:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Closing: consensus for (b). Disclosure to sit in §Reception in the body; evaluative sentences reviewed by an uninvolved editor; the review recorded on this page. Preference for documentary facts over characterisations adopted as drafting guidance. — — RfC_Rasmus (talk) 10:27, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Placing the standing note at the top of every supplier talk page so it does not have to be re-argued. Under Project:Vendor notability a supplier article may not contain: a price, an offer, a discount, a price list, any contact detail, or a shipping-outcome claim not attributed to a source.

Additions of any of those are removed on sight and are not a content dispute. — — NPOV_Nadia (talk) 09:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Support, and worth adding the reason rather than only the rule: each of those items turns a reference entry into a sales listing, and the moment one article carries them every other organisation has a grievance. — — CoI_Corin (talk) 11:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Support. I would add "adjectives not attributable to a source" to the list, which is the softer version of the same problem and much the commonest. — — Hedgerow_Hal (talk) 10:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Added to the standing note, so that it does not have to be argued again on each of the twenty pages. ✓ Resolved — — NPOV_Nadia (talk) 08:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)