This article is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AgricultureWikipedia:WikiProject AgricultureTemplate:WikiProject AgricultureAgriculture articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Austria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles about Austria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.AustriaWikipedia:WikiProject AustriaTemplate:WikiProject AustriaAustria articles
The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.
A paid editor made contributions to this article, and has disclosed that fact on this page, therefore the paid contributions template is a matter of fact and does not require discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:24, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
According to the policy "if you place the Paid tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article." As a paid editor I'm not allowed to remove the tag myself, but if any volunteer editor thinks that the neutral point of view of the article is ok, they are free to remove the tag as told in the Template:Paid contributions instructions: "If you do not start this discussion, then any editor is justified in removing the tag without warning."Jjanhone (talk) 17:14, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are a few things. I'll be brief because I was originally directed to the article by a program that works on Wikipedia to detect typographical errors, and all I did was fix a small typo. But now that I look at the article more critically...
It's obviously one-sided. The company has been in operation for 38 years and nothing bad or negative has ever happened?
It reads like a promotional piece, not like an encyclopedia article or something that "tells the story" about the company.
The middle part is a list, again, not how an encyclopedia article should read.
The use of ALLCAPS; capitalization and ampersand in the section heading; jargon abbreviations that are not needed.
I'm sorry for sounding harsh, but I don't feel that this is the type of article that enhances Wikipedia.
