Talk:World Institute for Nuclear Security

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Energy

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy 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.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Organizations

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations 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.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Conflict of Interest and Citation Issues

There is a serious conflict of interest issue with this article, as the current form of the article was written entirely by an employee of the organization. This rewrite of the article by the employee (which happened in October 2018) also cites no sources. However, I feel like restoring the article before the re-write is also not a good option: although it cites a few sources, most of the references are to primary sources published by the organization in question, and the previous version also does not have a neutral tone, being marked with the advert tag. (It appears that much of the previous version was also written by an account with a serious conflict of interest, the account in question bearing the initials of the organization. In fact, the current version, while still having COI issues, is written with a slightly more neutral tone than the previous version.)

I think the organization is probably notable enough to merit this article, but this article needs major work: to be rewritten (possibly from the ground up) and to have proper citations. I think there's some material in this version and in previous versions that can be reworked into a new version, and the external links section of the previous version contains some news reports that can be cited.

Since the organization clearly has an interest in this article, attention will have to be paid in order to make sure there are no further COI problems. Sandtalon (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]