This article is within the scope of WikiProject Glass, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
glass 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.GlassWikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Taskforces/GlassTemplate:WikiProject Glassglass articles
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 been given a rating which conflicts with the
project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
I didn't read this thoroughly, but I was tempted to slap an {{advert}} tag on it. It's pretty neutrally worded, but still strikes me as a bit propagandistic. I might be biased. But it's hard to tell how neutral this is without any
citations of
reliable sources...
Katr6723:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)reply
As other editors have noted both above and with the {{advertisement}} tag on the article, the article read more like a public relations release than a neutral encyclopedia article. I have begun to remove the promotional language.
To begin with I deleted the
peacock language of the infobox “Field of Research” parameter: “PNNL delivers leadership and advancements”.
I removed the entire “Missions and Core Capabilities” section because it was hopelessly promotional and would require a fundamental rewrite to become encyclopedic. A mission statement is useful as advertising and for internal focus, but it is inherently unencyclopedic. Perhaps there is something salvageable in the section, but I can’t identify it. (And although I expect it to be deleted, I moved the holograph image for now to another place.)
Other sections that need attention:
In the “Notable scientists” section: The paragraphs on Laboratory Fellows and Battelle Fellows are meaningful to PNNL employees, but these recognitions are not notable for our general audience. If the section is to be retained, the paragraph on external awards should perhaps be expanded, naming names and achievements.