Talk:Digital ballast/Archive 1

What you have here could be a good start. I did a quick run through to wikify the article, you might want to remove the red links or see if there are articles that they should point to under a different name. Jbhunley (talk) 18:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The issue is that right now it reads like an advertisement for digital ballasts. Claims for monitary savings, effecency etc all need to be documented by specific neutral studies done by third parties. Please see Wikipedia WP:NPOV WP:RS and WP:SPAM. Also, in my opinion, there should be more of what a digital balast IS rather than how new, good, different etc they are. Think of what you would expect to see in a Britinaca article rather than what you would see in something written by/for the industry. Jbhunley (talk) 18:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I placed citation-needed taggs in places I think are examples of things that require WP:RS. Also, lines like "It is a rather interesting concept that many users are beginning to realize – spend a little more now, save a lot more later." are not appropriate to an enclycopedia page. Keep up the good work and do not get discouraged. Jbhunley (talk) 18:28, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Specific NPOV issues."outstanding advancement", "rather interesting concept". Avon Lighting is not a WP:RS and may violate WP:SPAM. BG HYdro is not a WP:RS and may violate WP:SPAM. This is obviously a topic you are interested in, can you not find references that are not from manufacturers or industry advocates? Try some of the articles from this link to Google Scholar. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,47&q=digital+ballasts. Jbhunley (talk) 16:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the opportunity to include this. I am a big fan of wikipedia and love to contribute to things that I find worthwhile. We have implemented the technology at one of our airports and realized savings in the millions since then I have had to write about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.145.87.130 (talk) 17:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

OK. I think I have fixed every issue that you have outlined for me. This is not an advertisment! I work in the aerospace industry and have no affiliation with any of these business. I have noticed that if we all converted to this technology the world would be a greener place. If you look at just the sheer scope of industrial lighting.. streets/buildings/offices/trains etc. and the drain they put on our resources you might begin to grasp how much good this would do for our planet. If you really feel there is something else there that looks like an advertisement then just delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.145.87.130 (talk) 17:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Per your request I have edited to what, in my opinion, is more NPOV. You still need citations WP:RS to make the article verifiable WP:V and you should not use any manufacturer or industry website WP:NPOV WP:SPAM. If you have not read these policies please do. I think that it would be a good idea to get an admin to look at the article so you get input from someone that just me. Jbhunley (talk) 21:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)