Talk:SunPower
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, which collaborates on articles related to energy. | |
| Stub | This article has been rated as stub-Class on the assessment scale. | |
| Low | This article is on a subject of low importance within energy. | |
|
This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
||
[edit] All-black
There are a great many sources which suggest that the appropriate description is "all-black", rather than "all-back"[1] -- Johnfos 00:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, they are all black. That's because of the all-back-contact design (no silver wiring on the front); [2]. Dicklyon 04:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Promotional statements
This article strikes me as being highly promotional. Two of its four paragraphs read more as marketing-style project announcements than an encyclopedia article, and one of those--saying, "SunPower will invest over $4.4 billion in its Philippines plant..."--has a contradictory reference link that currently says, "SunPower to invest $570M in Philippine facility" (that was the headline presented to me today without my signing up for access to the full article). All of the External links seem entirely self-promotional--so much so, that eight of the nine links are to articles at the RenewableEnergyAccess.com domain, where each article page states that SunPower Corporation is "A RenewableEnergyAccess.com Marketing Partner". The ninth link is merely another corporate announcement that was apparently provided to--and then repackaged by--a news organization; every statement in the article is attributed to SunPower or one of its employees.
Consequently, I am removing the paragraph about the $4.4 billion investment and am removing the entire External links section. The References section already has a link to the company's website, so no separate External links section is needed.
Someone else could well review the remainder of the article, which seems to me to be supported only by statements that appear to come directly from SunPower or its representatives, according to the reference links.
--rich<Rich Janis 03:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)>
- I just reveted another such anon peacock edit. Sorry, I said "remove" instead of "revert" in my edit summary. Dicklyon 17:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
