Talk:QOR360
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
 | The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
COI Disclosure Statement
I work for WhiteHatWiki.com, which was hired by the subject of the article. I have rewritten a previous page that was deleted because the user was suspected to have been banned from Wikipedia as sock. This is my only account and I have never had another. The ethos of WhiteHatWiki is strictly abiding by Wikipedia policies (“white hat”), especially disclosure of conflict of interest. Aside from disclosure, I have tried to abide by NPOV, RS, Verify and other policies. As this page is about a product, whose notability is based on product reviews, I tried to be very sensitive to WP: PROMO. W12SW77 (talk) 20:46, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
AfC back and forth
Moving these notes from the Draft per note from @W12SW77 on my Talk as, to their point, the sock questions have been resolved sufficiently and these comments are not helpful to a future AfC reviewer but might be helpful for overall context in terms of the draft's history W12, let me know if this works for you? Star Mississippi 00:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
--
Comment: @Star Mississippi: Fair enough - I'm not very familiar with AFC to be honest and what the threshold is to decide whether to publish to mainspace or not. SmartSE (talk) 13:58, 22 September 2023 (UTC)- Comment: Makes total sense @SmartSE: and thanks for the further information. I personally don't care for accept and AfD so I'm not going to, but no objection to anyone else doing so. Star Mississippi 13:14, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: @Star Mississippi: Sorry about the delay. I think from a socking perspective, there are no problems - it does seem as if the article has been re-written rather than just being reposted. Personally, I think that the company is a long way from meeting WP:CORP and the entire premise of this article is in violation of WP:NOTPROMO and WP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS against "big chair" but I think that's best settled at AFD rather than here. SmartSE (talk) 09:46, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: Thank you for that context @W12SW77:, it's very helpful and the diclosure as well. If I saw red flags, I'd have declined this or reported your account, which I did not do. I'm not as familiar with the history but based on what you report below, perhaps past versions would then be undeleted if this is accepted. @Smartse: any thoughts? I'm not familiar enough with the subject matter to assess this on merit so am leaving for another reviewer. Star Mississippi 01:24, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: @Star Mississippi:@Smartse:. I disclosed the situation on Talk. Draft talk:QOR360#COI Disclosure_Statement. While it's the same topic, I have created a new article. The language is different and it includes new sources, such as a recent Wall Street Journal article. I still had to use the original sources to establish notability and the same basic structure for an article about a product because there's no way around that. This topic, with fewer sources, was already found to be notable at AfC once. And now there are even more sources. There's been no finding to ban this topic, so it should be considered on the merits. I am a paid consultant who has disclosed COI on every page I've ever worked on. My firm and I have no connection to the banned sock Smartse has been hunting down. In fact, “WhiteHatWIki” is entirely based on strict compliance with Wikipedia policy, which is why the company hired us to deal with this situation. To clarify, Smartse posted a complaint about a possible sock, but the editor was in fact, not a sock, but a co-founder of the company who disclosed this COI at the time of AfC submission. So far as I know, this COI editor has not been blocked or found to be a sock. He has been vehement that he in fact, did not hire the banned account or their firm. He offered to be personally contacted by email or phone to confirm his identity. Smartse nonetheless maintained that he suspected the work was originally written by a banned sock, so they deleted it. I’m sure the submission looked suspicious because the editor had no previous activity prior to the AfC submission. It really makes no difference at this point who is right because this new article was created by me, not the sock. W12SW77 (talk) 18:21, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: Substantially the same as deleted article created by blocked sock. @Smartse: any suggestions? Star Mississippi 23:51, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Suggested edits for February 2024
 | The user below has a request that an edit be made to QOR360. That user has an actual or apparent conflict of interest. The requested edits backlog is high. Please be very patient. There are currently 166 requests waiting for review. Please read the instructions for the parameters used by this template for accepting and declining them, and review the request below and make the edit if it is well sourced, neutral, and follows other Wikipedia guidelines and policies. |
I’d like to suggest edits to this article to address complaints of possible promotional language flagged on the top of the page, as well as one structural issue. I work for WhiteHatWiki, which was hired by the subject of this article.
First request
Please move the current fourth sentence of the History section to become the new first sentence of the History section.
Along with his son, Lex,[1] Osler founded QOR360 in 2016.[2]
Reason for the change:
Sets the stage for a more standard company History section, placing the founding date above the origin story.
Second request
Please replace what should now be the fourth sentence in the History section.
From:
Osler said he conceived his own design after he was unable to find an affordable ergonomic chair that alleviated his back pain.[3]
To:
Osler said he conceived his own design after he was unable to find an affordable ergonomic chair.[3]
Reason:
As written, the sentence could be interpreted as claiming that Osler’s chair will alleviate back pain. This would be a biomedical claim based on Osler’s experience, not peer-reviewed research.
Third request
Please replace the first sentence in the Product section.
From:
The chairs are designed around a feature Osler patented as RedRocker technology;[4] a dome-shaped rubber piece beneath the seat that allows it to wobble and pivot.[1]
To:
The chairs are designed around a dome-shaped rubber piece beneath the seat that allows it to wobble and pivot.[1]
Reason:
The suggested replacement removes branding language that is unnecessary to convey the information.
Fourth request
Please replace the second paragraph of the Product section.
From:
In 2022 QOR360 designed a chair called the ButtOn, that is intended for use in classrooms and be constructed using free, downloadable plans.[5]
To:
In 2022 QOR360 designed a chair for use in classrooms that can be constructed using free, downloadable plans.[5]
Reason:
The suggested replacement removes branding language that is unnecessary to convey the information.
Fifth request
Please remove the flag from the top of the page.
Reason:
The proposed edits have removed possibly promotional content, the reason for the flag.
Thanks for your time and assistance. W12SW77 (talk) 16:25, 2 February 2024 (UTC) W12SW77 (talk) 16:25, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- Not done, it still reads like advertising and also may not meet notability.
References
- ^ a b c Baker, Billy (1 February 2020). "A former surgeon changes the idea of what a chair should be". Boston Globe. Retrieved 13 October 2022.
- ^ Little, Harriet Fitch (3 June 2022). "The best chair for work may not be the one you think". Financial Times. Retrieved 13 October 2022.
- ^ a b Kalish, John (24 May 2022). "This retired Vermont doctor designs active chairs for healthy sitting". Here & Now. National Public Radio. wbur. Retrieved 17 October 2022.
- ^ Puniewska, Magdalena (17 January 2020). "Goodbye, Back Pain? This Office Chair Was Designed by a Trauma Surgeon". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 14 October 2022.
- ^ a b Kalish, Jon (16 June 2022). "Vt. surgeon builds better chair for active sitting". Addison County Independent. Retrieved 23 August 2023.
Notability
This is a new article (albeit a bit long in the tooth), so I looked at it as part of NPP. Tricky because of the prior deletion & COI. Also tricky because if it had not been designed by a retired trauma surgeon I doubt it would have received coverage. (Consider if it had been designed by an art student or an accountant.)
Proofs of notability might be massive sales, strong reviews in independent articles, industry awards or similar. All I could find was a scathing review in wired magazine. Ldm1954 (talk) 05:29, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Ldm1954: Thanks for taking the time to look over the proposed edits to QOR360. As a declared paid editor, I appreciate that you’re a volunteer and I value your work. But I disagree with your reading of Wikipedia’s Notability guidelines for companies and hope you’ll reconsider the tag you added to the top of the page. Do you have time to discuss?
- Your explanation of Notability here is so at loggerheads with Wikipedia policy for companies found at WP:NCORP. You’ve articulated a whole series of criteria for notability of a page about a company/product that judge a company on its merits rather than its significant press coverage. This is in complete conflict with the actual Wikipedia Notability policy.
- You write that “Proofs of notability might be massive sales, strong reviews in independent articles, industry awards or similar.” However, per WP:ORGCRITE: A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. There is no assessment on the merits of a company (in stark contrast to other language editions of Wikipedia, such as the German, which assess companies based on objective statistics such as their revenue, number of employees, etc.)
- QOR360 was already reviewed and approved at WP:AFC by User:Ca because it easily satisfies the Notability requirements based on significant press coverage. See WP:ORGCRITE:
- The company was profiled in a 2020 article in the Wall Street Journal; a 2020 article in the Boston Globe; a 2022 feature story on WBUR in Boston; a 2022 article in the Addison Independent; a 2019 article in the Burlington Free Press; and a 2021 article in the Milton Independent.
- The company also received coverage in a 2022 article in the Financial Times; and a 2023 article in the Wall Street Journal.
- While sales and strong reviews may be what attracts the interest of journalists and drives press coverage, they are not criteria for establishing Notability on Wikipedia.
- Also please take another look at the Wired review you cited. The product review in Wired that you characterize as “scathing” is actually a very positive review of the chair, which the reviewer noted took time to get used to. Ultimately the reviewer deemed the chair “great for easing back pain” and concluded: “After a week of gradually increasing the length of time, my back pain started to disappear, and I felt my posture improve whenever I was away from my desk.”
- Regardless, it’s a review from a major publication, which further adds to notability of the page - there’s no part of WP: PRODUCTREV that says a review must be positive to help establish notability. The reviews must be significant, independent and in editorially credible publications.
- Furthermore, you write: “If the chair had not been designed by an ex trauma surgeon it is not clear that it would have been covered in articles.”
- Whether the company would’ve been covered in articles were it not for the founder being a trauma surgeon is a hypothetical outside the bounds of Wikipedia policy. Under NCORP what matters is that the story has significant coverage, the reporter is independent, and the publication has a reputation for editorial credibility. NCORP does not include an assessment of what aspects of a subject attracted an independent reporter to write a story.
- You also say: “Nothing here seems to be more than advertising.” The content and language on the page is in line with Good Articles mostly about products such as Proactiv, Heat (perfume), and SpaceX.
- Your assessment that the page is largely advertising, despite its language being neutral (not even paraphrasing the many positive reviews) suggests that you may think any Wikipedia page written about a company product is inherently advertising. This is not the case as not only are there many GAs about products. WP:NCORP even has specific criteria that make it possible to qualify a page about a product based entirely on product reviews.
- It would be helpful if you would identify specific language or sentences that you think violate WP:PROMO so we can address any issues you see. That’s the point of Tagging - to encourage pages with problems to be improved. Tags are specifically prohibited from beijing punitive.
- I already posted a Request Edit at suggested changes in an effort to fix any possible small issues with NPOV. You accepted some of these changes. WP:PROMO.
- I hope some of the above points will encourage a re-evaluation on your part and that you will remove the tags.
- Thanks for your time. W12SW77 (talk) 18:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)