Talk:Alila Hotels and Resorts
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 12 May 2023. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.png){kind=small}
29/30 July Update to Article and Improvement
[edit]To start, I am an editor primarily interested in hospitality, more specifically hotels and hotel companies, and architecture (mainly those based in South East Asia). This shall be reflected in my previous contributions to Wikipedia.
I have expanded the article with new information on the history section and removed uncited claims that were prevalent in the article. This required a thorough rewriting of the article to remove such claims and blatant advertisement content (i.e. "New Alila Marea Beach Resort Encinitas (San Diego, CA) Now accepting reservations for stays from March 17, 2021 and beyond." or "Alila properties are located in unique destinations that are traditionally less-traveled, utilizing local materials and practices under a sustainable approach." both previously found and now removed from properties section).
These significant changes will thereby will be marked as a considerable change in the edit history section as such.
Furthermore, I have fixed existing citations that were poorly listed or poorly made (i.e. no Author, no date, and inaccurate titles) and added significantly more citations, primarily from secondary sources to back the new information and claims. This will replace some ineffective, primary sources that do not fit its purpose (i.e. not useful like 5 different sources from Commune Hotels and Resorts owned websites, all redirecting to the Hyatt Corporation). I have incorporated the partnership section into the history section, and expanded on it based on available information regarding developments on that front (i.e. Commune and Alila's merger, and Hyatt's later takeover of the merged company)
Finally, I have elected to remove the issues tag placed on top of the page to reflect the changes that have added significantly more, and improved citations mainly from secondary sources, and removed blatant advertising on the page.
Please be advised that my update was previously reverted, and the current revision was a restoration of that reverted, plus some changes to further remove content that can seem un-Wikipedian (i.e. Properties list).
Okadiputera (talk) 03:06, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
31 July 2021 article dispute (reversions)
[edit]I am logging a dispute on the reversions of the edits and improvements I have made for this page, that were reverted by two separate users in a manner I believe in unjustified. I have left a message on both user's talk pages, but they have not been answered by either user. No clarifications were made for the reversions but I have instead been accused of adding spam or been accused as having a COI (if I had a COI, I would announce it but I do not have ties to any of the pages I have created or edited). I have explained my edit changes on the article talk page as above and cited my edits with numerous secondary sources, but my edit on 30 July 2021 was still reverted today simply because my account appears to be relatively new. I will clarify that this account is a replacement for another account that I retired due to privacy concerns associated with the username. Okadiputera (talk) 18:16, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Request for comment on edit dispute
[edit]I have expanded and objectively improved the article, including the expansion of its content, removed blatant advertisements, and fixed poor citations and added new ones from secondary sources. The edits I have made were reverted twice without providing significant clarification, and was instead tagged as Spam. I'd like to request a comment reviewing the two versions of the page (current and previous version). Thank you. Okadiputera (talk) 19:35, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- User:Okadiputera I think your version is clearly better prose and cites, Prax is just too Spartan. Also, I think Prax was not meaning your edits (or not just your edits) as “spammy” because Prax also removed other stuff in making it so little, and because the statement was not specific to you - seems like just wanting minimal content. In particular, note the long-standing list of locations and general strategy of “Alila properties are located in unique destinations that are traditionally less-traveled, utilizing local materials and practices under a sustainable approach. As of June 2020, hotels / resorts are situated in:”. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:17, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Explanation on undoing revision 1036258591 and restored previous version
[edit]Due to the noticeable absence of discussion I have restored article to previous version and undid revision 1036258591 by Ekuftle (which I believed was unjustified), citing WP:BABY. The revision removed improvements and an expansion of the article with additional citations, solely because of the age of editing account and ignoring WP:AFG. I removed the article tag "more citations needed|date=July 2015" due to the 13 additional sources compared to the previous version. Refer to the reference list that lists 22 citations, 21 being from secondary sources and 1 being from a primary souce; compare to previous version which cites 8 sources, 4 of which are primary. Removed 4 primary citations:
Removed above references for being unconstructive/unhelpful Primary Sources, that do not back any claims.
Improved and fixed 3 existing citations:
- Previous
- Improved to
Restored/kept tag advert| "date=June 2017" to leave attention for future editors to remove content deemed too much like an advertisement.
Further removed content from restored version that can appear to sound like an advertisement.
Will reiterate that I do not have an affiliation/employment to the subject of the article (or with any subject I've contributed to]], that was used as a reason on revision 1036258591 by Ekuftle. I completely understand [Terms of Use] on paid advocacy, and as such I have denied any COI and publicly responded when questioned about the possibility user talk:Okadiputera.