Talk:National Fuel Gas: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Chris Day
(oops for got to add this here.)
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz
(→‎Severall thoughts: new section)
Line 5: Line 5:


As a result of [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=User_talk:Larry_Sanger&oldid=100423767#Business_world a discussion on Larry Sanger's page], I am advised to seek the opinion of other Citizendium editors to comment on this article's quality, style, and tone... as to whether it is appropriate content for Citizendium or not.  Dr. Sanger is understandably too busy to comment.  Note, the provenance of the article was not funded or influenced in any way whatsoever by the National Fuel Gas company, and the author has no financial, familial, or emotional relationship with the company, either. -- [[User:Gregory J. Kohs|Gregory J. Kohs]] 17:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
As a result of [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=User_talk:Larry_Sanger&oldid=100423767#Business_world a discussion on Larry Sanger's page], I am advised to seek the opinion of other Citizendium editors to comment on this article's quality, style, and tone... as to whether it is appropriate content for Citizendium or not.  Dr. Sanger is understandably too busy to comment.  Note, the provenance of the article was not funded or influenced in any way whatsoever by the National Fuel Gas company, and the author has no financial, familial, or emotional relationship with the company, either. -- [[User:Gregory J. Kohs|Gregory J. Kohs]] 17:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
== Severall thoughts ==
I think it would have the potential to be usable, but let me suggest some context and procedures that might help. Let me also add the caveat that I am an Engineering editor, and have never claimed to be an Economics editor, or to have played one in a dramatic production.
One of the ways CZ can differentiate itself is by having a more advanced knowledge navigation structure than other encyclopedias. Our "Related Articles" subpages are part of that structure.
At present, we don't seem to have articles for several "parent" articles. The tiles here are hypothetical.
{{r|Natural gas}}
{{r|Natural gas exploration}}
{{r|Pipeline}}
{{r|Timber}}
One of the keys to making the company article a viable part of the encyclopedia would to ensure that it is not "orphaned". A tentative rule of thumb is that a "strongly linked" article is not an orphan when it has at least three other articles that link to it.
So, I would ask the question, "what other articles would reasonably link to this article?" If there are no existing articles that would do so, could you create some legitimate generic-subject articles that themselves would be strongly linked to existing articles, and then link the specific company to them, in a manner that adds value beyond the company name?
The more you generalize, the better. We have, for example, considered asking the manufacturers of some military equipment to contribute articles on the technology.  I don't think anyone would turn away someone from Microsoft who wanted to write about Vista technology, although the content might trigger a few giggles. The supply-and-demand technique that National Fuel Gas uses appears to be both a technology and an economic case study, but I defer to my economist colleagues on the latter.
I'm not comfortable with the paragraph about "balanced billing", and generally am not comfortable with using slogans unless they really have become part of culture, or are illustrative of a more general topic. For example, I once worked for a manufacturer of telephone company equipment that had an informal motto, which I never actually saw on a sales document but was used in many presentations, of "once up, always up". This led into a considerable engineering discussion of building fault-tolerant, maintainable systems, and I may, indeed, use the phrase when I get around to doing a [[fault tolerance]] article.
Does this help?  The more you show us how the article links to other content, which might require you writing some generic topic articles, the stronger the article becomes as a case study. Indeed, even writing one or more articles on competitors, at least to identify them, would help neutrality. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 20:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:32, 16 December 2008

This article was authored by User:Gregory J. Kohs, as a demonstration. The content first appeared on MyWikiBiz.com in 2006, was modified September 12-14, 2008, and then was copied into Wikipedia by an administrator of that site. It is hereby released under the provisions of the GFDL and the CC family of licenses. As an additional assurance to the reader, neither Gregory Kohs or MyWikiBiz.com have any payment, employment, customer, or family relationship or history with the subject of the article (National Fuel Gas) or any of its subsidiaries.


As a result of a discussion on Larry Sanger's page, I am advised to seek the opinion of other Citizendium editors to comment on this article's quality, style, and tone... as to whether it is appropriate content for Citizendium or not. Dr. Sanger is understandably too busy to comment. Note, the provenance of the article was not funded or influenced in any way whatsoever by the National Fuel Gas company, and the author has no financial, familial, or emotional relationship with the company, either. -- Gregory J. Kohs 17:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Severall thoughts

I think it would have the potential to be usable, but let me suggest some context and procedures that might help. Let me also add the caveat that I am an Engineering editor, and have never claimed to be an Economics editor, or to have played one in a dramatic production.

One of the ways CZ can differentiate itself is by having a more advanced knowledge navigation structure than other encyclopedias. Our "Related Articles" subpages are part of that structure.

At present, we don't seem to have articles for several "parent" articles. The tiles here are hypothetical.

One of the keys to making the company article a viable part of the encyclopedia would to ensure that it is not "orphaned". A tentative rule of thumb is that a "strongly linked" article is not an orphan when it has at least three other articles that link to it.

So, I would ask the question, "what other articles would reasonably link to this article?" If there are no existing articles that would do so, could you create some legitimate generic-subject articles that themselves would be strongly linked to existing articles, and then link the specific company to them, in a manner that adds value beyond the company name?

The more you generalize, the better. We have, for example, considered asking the manufacturers of some military equipment to contribute articles on the technology. I don't think anyone would turn away someone from Microsoft who wanted to write about Vista technology, although the content might trigger a few giggles. The supply-and-demand technique that National Fuel Gas uses appears to be both a technology and an economic case study, but I defer to my economist colleagues on the latter.

I'm not comfortable with the paragraph about "balanced billing", and generally am not comfortable with using slogans unless they really have become part of culture, or are illustrative of a more general topic. For example, I once worked for a manufacturer of telephone company equipment that had an informal motto, which I never actually saw on a sales document but was used in many presentations, of "once up, always up". This led into a considerable engineering discussion of building fault-tolerant, maintainable systems, and I may, indeed, use the phrase when I get around to doing a fault tolerance article.

Does this help? The more you show us how the article links to other content, which might require you writing some generic topic articles, the stronger the article becomes as a case study. Indeed, even writing one or more articles on competitors, at least to identify them, would help neutrality. Howard C. Berkowitz 20:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)