Talk:Varilux

Citations

The citations are appended to the section headers, which makes it hard to attribute or change statements in the paragraph or add others. Moreover, there are few independent sources and I cannot locate the book (?) "The Varilux Epic". I've also added a few other tags taking into account that now two editors have considered this as deletable advertising.--Tikiwont (talk) 22:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay the main source on the history seems called L'épopée Varilux form and written French, so it is of course unhelpful to cite it with a translated title unless it has actually been translated which I see no trace of--Tikiwont (talk) 20:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The main source is indeed "The Varilux Epic", which WAS translated, ISBN 978-2-262-02842-8 (talk)

Thanks for clarifying and sorry if my remark sounded edgy. I simply meant that other users cannot verify citations if the book has not been translated, published and is actually available in libraries. Of which i still see no trace in Google books, worldcat etc. I understand though, that Essilor has it and recommends it highly.[1]In any case, proper in-line citations for the English source would need to be added according to WP:CITATIONS, while the French one can simply be listed as reference. --Tikiwont (talk) 19:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I provided the inline citations, but as you can see... it makes for a fairly messy reference page. Please advise. Thanks!Gouletal (talk) 08:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. At this point its important that you've provided the page numbers. The style is more or less what is advised at Wikipedia:CITESHORT and I've just converted it to two columns. If things get more complicated, Template:Rp/doc provides a more nuanced way. Others may chime here as well. I mostly came here because of the requested speedy deletion. --Tikiwont (talk) 19:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable Neutral POV

This article reads too much like advertising copy. 64.56.140.43 (talk) 16:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spam-edits in 2009 still dominate Essilor and Varilux, also in the history of the redirect at Crizal

Based on the first edit of Varilux on August 10, 2009 (here), a very large August 10, 2009 addition to Essilor (here), the first edit of the now-redirect Crizal (here) on the same day, and the contribution history of that editor (here), as well as the contribution history of this non-logged-in editor from July 13-15, 2009 (here) whose IP address currently (11 years later) is listed as a likely-static IP address belonging to Essilor (whatismyipaddress.com lookup), along with the two edits of July 9 and 14 by an editor with a very similar username (here), I think it's safe to say that the two remaining non-redirect articles are heavily contaminated by WP:COI-editing, probably by a single editor employed by Essilor. I will be posting this on both Talk:Essilor and Talk:Varilux and may link to these discussions from relevant WikiProject discussion pages. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]