Talk:Ambit Energy/Archives/2015
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
J.D. Power stuff, criticism in lead, and other changes
With this edit I again removed the info about the company being ranked by J.D. Power and Associates. Until this can be supported by a reliable, WP:SECONDARY source, it is undue weight and doesn't belong. Press releases are not secondary.
I have also removed the information about the New York State Consumer Protection Board launching an investigation of the company from the lead. It does belong in the article, and Vos Iz Neias? is a reliable source (I think, anyway), but the lead is a place to summarize the body of the article, not to introduce new info. The controversial nature of the company should be explained in the lead, but not like that.
It's also important not to replace content from the article with copy/pastes of sources. This is a WP:COPYVIO. If there's a problem with the wording, change it to your own words, or discuss it here.
I removed the info about the ratio of complaints about all ESCOs vs. Ambit. It lacks enough context to be informative, and appeared to be trying to downplay the issue. The company started in 2006, so having 34 complains the following year may or may not be very significant to the company. What was Ambit's market share at that time? If it was still comparatively small, that's a very large number of complaints, and if it was huge, not so much. Without a more detailed explanation, it was misleadingly suggesting that the complaints were trivial. They may have been trivial, but that's WP:OR to emphasize that fact without a source explicitly making that point. At the very least "Despite this" and "only 34" are WP:WTW, which is pretty clear red flag that this was included in a non-neutral way. Grayfell (talk) 21:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Untitled
Is the "This article appears to be written like an advertisement" notice from January 2012 still relevant? Seems pretty balanced now and looks like a lot of editing has happened since then to address that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.182.10.146 (talk) 22:01, 30 May 2013 (UTC)