Talk:QOR360

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

Articles for creation This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC This article was accepted from this draft on 5 November 2023 by reviewer Ca (talk · contribs). Engineering This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering 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.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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. W12SW77 (talk · contribs) has been paid by WhiteHatWiki on behalf of QOR360. Disclosure.

I work for WhiteHatWiki.com, which was hired by the subject of the article. I have rewritten a previous page that was deleted because the user was suspected to have been banned from Wikipedia as sock. This is my only account and I have never had another. The ethos of WhiteHatWiki is strictly abiding by Wikipedia policies (“white hat”), especially disclosure of conflict of interest. Aside from disclosure, I have tried to abide by NPOV, RS, Verify and other policies. As this page is about a product, whose notability is based on product reviews, I tried to be very sensitive to WP: PROMO. W12SW77 (talk) 20:46, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moving these notes from the Draft per note from @W12SW77 on my Talk as, to their point, the sock questions have been resolved sufficiently and these comments are not helpful to a future AfC reviewer but might be helpful for overall context in terms of the draft's history W12, let me know if this works for you? Star Mississippi 00:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

--

• Comment: @Star Mississippi: Fair enough - I'm not very familiar with AFC to be honest and what the threshold is to decide whether to publish to mainspace or not. SmartSE (talk) 13:58, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Makes total sense @SmartSE: and thanks for the further information. I personally don't care for accept and AfD so I'm not going to, but no objection to anyone else doing so. Star Mississippi 13:14, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: @Star Mississippi: Sorry about the delay. I think from a socking perspective, there are no problems - it does seem as if the article has been re-written rather than just being reposted. Personally, I think that the company is a long way from meeting WP:CORP and the entire premise of this article is in violation of WP:NOTPROMO and WP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS against "big chair" but I think that's best settled at AFD rather than here. SmartSE (talk) 09:46, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Thank you for that context @W12SW77:, it's very helpful and the diclosure as well. If I saw red flags, I'd have declined this or reported your account, which I did not do. I'm not as familiar with the history but based on what you report below, perhaps past versions would then be undeleted if this is accepted. @Smartse: any thoughts? I'm not familiar enough with the subject matter to assess this on merit so am leaving for another reviewer. Star Mississippi 01:24, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: @Star Mississippi:@Smartse:. I disclosed the situation on Talk. Draft talk:QOR360#COI Disclosure_Statement. While it's the same topic, I have created a new article. The language is different and it includes new sources, such as a recent Wall Street Journal article. I still had to use the original sources to establish notability and the same basic structure for an article about a product because there's no way around that. This topic, with fewer sources, was already found to be notable at AfC once. And now there are even more sources. There's been no finding to ban this topic, so it should be considered on the merits. I am a paid consultant who has disclosed COI on every page I've ever worked on. My firm and I have no connection to the banned sock Smartse has been hunting down. In fact, “WhiteHatWIki” is entirely based on strict compliance with Wikipedia policy, which is why the company hired us to deal with this situation. To clarify, Smartse posted a complaint about a possible sock, but the editor was in fact, not a sock, but a co-founder of the company who disclosed this COI at the time of AfC submission. So far as I know, this COI editor has not been blocked or found to be a sock. He has been vehement that he in fact, did not hire the banned account or their firm. He offered to be personally contacted by email or phone to confirm his identity. Smartse nonetheless maintained that he suspected the work was originally written by a banned sock, so they deleted it. I’m sure the submission looked suspicious because the editor had no previous activity prior to the AfC submission. It really makes no difference at this point who is right because this new article was created by me, not the sock. W12SW77 (talk) 18:21, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Substantially the same as deleted article created by blocked sock. @Smartse: any suggestions? Star Mississippi 23:51, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined.

I’d like to suggest edits to this article to address complaints of possible promotional language flagged on the top of the page, as well as one structural issue. I work for WhiteHatWiki, which was hired by the subject of this article.

First request

Please move the current fourth sentence of the History section to become the new first sentence of the History section.

Along with his son, Lex,[1] Osler founded QOR360 in 2016.[2]

Reason for the change:

Sets the stage for a more standard company History section, placing the founding date above the origin story.

Second request

Please replace what should now be the fourth sentence in the History section.

From:

Osler said he conceived his own design after he was unable to find an affordable ergonomic chair that alleviated his back pain.[3]

To:

Osler said he conceived his own design after he was unable to find an affordable ergonomic chair.[3]

Reason:

As written, the sentence could be interpreted as claiming that Osler’s chair will alleviate back pain. This would be a biomedical claim based on Osler’s experience, not peer-reviewed research.

• Done, seems reasonable Ldm1954 (talk) 05:07, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Third request

Please replace the first sentence in the Product section.

From:

The chairs are designed around a feature Osler patented as RedRocker technology;[4] a dome-shaped rubber piece beneath the seat that allows it to wobble and pivot.[1]

To:

The chairs are designed around a dome-shaped rubber piece beneath the seat that allows it to wobble and pivot.[1]

Reason:

The suggested replacement removes branding language that is unnecessary to convey the information.

Fourth request

Please replace the second paragraph of the Product section.

From:

In 2022 QOR360 designed a chair called the ButtOn, that is intended for use in classrooms and be constructed using free, downloadable plans.[5]

To:

In 2022 QOR360 designed a chair for use in classrooms that can be constructed using free, downloadable plans.[5]

Reason:

The suggested replacement removes branding language that is unnecessary to convey the information.

• Done, seems reasonable Ldm1954 (talk) 05:07, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth request

Please remove the flag from the top of the page.

Reason:

The proposed edits have removed possibly promotional content, the reason for the flag.

Thanks for your time and assistance. W12SW77 (talk) 16:25, 2 February 2024 (UTC) W12SW77 (talk) 16:25, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Not done, it still reads like advertising and also may not meet notability.

Not done: No. This article is better off deleted. Quetstar (talk) 02:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a new article (albeit a bit long in the tooth), so I looked at it as part of NPP. Tricky because of the prior deletion & COI. Also tricky because if it had not been designed by a retired trauma surgeon I doubt it would have received coverage. (Consider if it had been designed by an art student or an accountant.)

Proofs of notability might be massive sales, strong reviews in independent articles, industry awards or similar. All I could find was a scathing review in wired magazine. Ldm1954 (talk) 05:29, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ldm1954: Thanks for taking the time to look over the proposed edits to QOR360. As a declared paid editor, I appreciate that you’re a volunteer and I value your work. But I disagree with your reading of Wikipedia’s Notability guidelines for companies and hope you’ll reconsider the tag you added to the top of the page. Do you have time to discuss? Your explanation of Notability here is so at loggerheads with Wikipedia policy for companies found at WP:NCORP. You’ve articulated a whole series of criteria for notability of a page about a company/product that judge a company on its merits rather than its significant press coverage. This is in complete conflict with the actual Wikipedia Notability policy. You write that “Proofs of notability might be massive sales, strong reviews in independent articles, industry awards or similar.” However, per WP:ORGCRITE: A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. There is no assessment on the merits of a company (in stark contrast to other language editions of Wikipedia, such as the German, which assess companies based on objective statistics such as their revenue, number of employees, etc.) QOR360 was already reviewed and approved at WP:AFC by User:Ca because it easily satisfies the Notability requirements based on significant press coverage. See WP:ORGCRITE: The company was profiled in a 2020 article in the Wall Street Journal; a 2020 article in the Boston Globe; a 2022 feature story on WBUR in Boston; a 2022 article in the Addison Independent; a 2019 article in the Burlington Free Press; and a 2021 article in the Milton Independent. The company also received coverage in a 2022 article in the Financial Times; and a 2023 article in the Wall Street Journal. While sales and strong reviews may be what attracts the interest of journalists and drives press coverage, they are not criteria for establishing Notability on Wikipedia. Also please take another look at the Wired review you cited. The product review in Wired that you characterize as “scathing” is actually a very positive review of the chair, which the reviewer noted took time to get used to. Ultimately the reviewer deemed the chair “great for easing back pain” and concluded: “After a week of gradually increasing the length of time, my back pain started to disappear, and I felt my posture improve whenever I was away from my desk.” Regardless, it’s a review from a major publication, which further adds to notability of the page - there’s no part of WP: PRODUCTREV that says a review must be positive to help establish notability. The reviews must be significant, independent and in editorially credible publications. Furthermore, you write: “If the chair had not been designed by an ex trauma surgeon it is not clear that it would have been covered in articles.” Whether the company would’ve been covered in articles were it not for the founder being a trauma surgeon is a hypothetical outside the bounds of Wikipedia policy. Under NCORP what matters is that the story has significant coverage, the reporter is independent, and the publication has a reputation for editorial credibility. NCORP does not include an assessment of what aspects of a subject attracted an independent reporter to write a story. You also say: “Nothing here seems to be more than advertising.” The content and language on the page is in line with Good Articles mostly about products such as Proactiv, Heat (perfume), and SpaceX. Your assessment that the page is largely advertising, despite its language being neutral (not even paraphrasing the many positive reviews) suggests that you may think any Wikipedia page written about a company product is inherently advertising. This is not the case as not only are there many GAs about products. WP:NCORP even has specific criteria that make it possible to qualify a page about a product based entirely on product reviews. It would be helpful if you would identify specific language or sentences that you think violate WP:PROMO so we can address any issues you see. That’s the point of Tagging - to encourage pages with problems to be improved. Tags are specifically prohibited from beijing punitive. I already posted a Request Edit at suggested changes in an effort to fix any possible small issues with NPOV. You accepted some of these changes. WP:PROMO. I hope some of the above points will encourage a re-evaluation on your part and that you will remove the tags. Thanks for your time. W12SW77 (talk) 18:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply] @W12SW77 @Ldm1954 This page looks notable. Some parts of this may do well with rephrasing for neutrality. However, it has been covered by numerous reliable sources which are cited and focus clearly on the topic at hand. Because of this, I find this article notable, but I suggest that parts of it be rewritten. Thanks,NeuropolTalk 18:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply] @Neuropol:Thanks very much for taking the time to review the page. I would be happy to do the revisions you suggested. Would you mind pointing me in the right direction? What language should I focus on? Thanks again. @Ldm1954: Do you have any feedback based on Neuropol’s remarks? W12SW77 (talk) 12:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply] Reply to both Neuropol and W12SW77: please note the prior refusal to make changes by Quetstar on April 30th 2024 who commented "This article is better off deleted". There already was a third opinion which was harsher than my adding a tag, and also after I declined to make changes. The comments by Neuropol are a fourth opinion. Also, please do not provide misinformation. You claim that the wired article is positive, but the concluding sentence is After testing several active chairs, the Ariel 1.0 was the one that felt most effective, but there's a good chance you don't really need it. Saying that the chair is not needed is not a positive review. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply] I think the tone of the whole article could be more encyclopedic. As an example, "Osler spent up to 60 hours a week sitting and claimed to develop back pain as a result" seems somewhat dubious to me. Thanks,NeuropolTalk 12:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A request has been made via WP:3O for a third editor to weigh in on a discussion of Notability. W12SW77 (talk) 13:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Neuropol:Based on your feedback, how about cutting down the length of the origin story and re-arranging it so the founding date comes first? This would be the entire History section: QOR360 was founded in 2016 by Turner Osler, a former surgeon, and his son, Lex.[1] Osler said he conceived the initial design after being unable to find an affordable ergonomic chair to address his back pain.[2] In 2022 the Financial Times reported that the increase in working from home during the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in increased sales of the chairs.[3] Thanks for taking a look.W12SW77 (talk) 16:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC) W12SW77 (talk) 16:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply] Sure, though I recommend adding a comma here: "In 2022, the Financial Times..." I may tweak further later as well, but that should be good for now. Thanks,NeuropolTalk 16:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply] @Neuropol: Thanks for the feedback. I agree about the comma. If you’re good with the following, are you able to implement the edit to become the new History section? I won’t make any direct edits due to my COI. QOR360 was founded in 2016 by Turner Osler, a former surgeon, and his son, Lex.[1] Osler said he conceived the initial design after being unable to find an affordable ergonomic chair to address his back pain.[2] In 2022 the Financial Times reported that the increase in working from home during the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in increased sales of the chairs.[3] I believe this edit should address any outstanding concerns over language that reads like advertising. Thanks again for all of your feedback.W12SW77 (talk) 17:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC) W12SW77 (talk) 17:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply] Sounds good. @Ldm1954 Do you have any more comments to make about this dispute on your behalf before I go ahead and implement these changes? Thanks,NeuropolTalk 17:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply] @Neuropol: Since there doesn’t appear to be further comment, are you good to implement the changes? Thanks again for reviewing.W12SW77 (talk) 13:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply] @Neuropol: I just wanted to put this back on your radar. If there’s anything else I can do to improve the page before you implement the changes, please let me know. ThanksW12SW77 (talk) 18:18, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined.

I’d like to request that the line in the maintenance template saying the page reads like advertising be removed. I have a conflict of interest as a consultant for WhiteHatWiki, hired by the subject of this article. (I am taking over from User:W12SW77 from WhiteHatWiki).

In November 2023, a maintenance template was added to the page stating that the article contains content that is written like an advertisement.

Since then, no editor has started a Talk page discussion to explain the problem. The tag can be removed by any editor for that reason alone under WP:WTRMT. This policy says that when it comes to neutrality-related templates such as “tlx|POV” (associated with the neutral point of view policy) it is “strongly recommended that the tagging editor initiate a discussion (generally on the article's talk page) to support the placement of the tag. If the tagging editor failed to do so, or the discussion is dormant, and there is no other support for the template, it can be removed.”

Any article which describes a company’s products can be claimed by some to have an advertising tone since even the most neutral description of products or services might be argued to be of benefit to the company. But this argument, absent specific claims of NPOV violations, is contrary to Wikipedia policy. Pages about companies with products, or even products themselves, are a well established part of WP: NCORP, which even allows independent product reviews to help qualify a page. WP:PRODUCTREV

The language on the QOR360 page is neutral and devoid of puffery, so far as I can tell and no one has brought up any contrary specifics.

It’s now been since February 2024 [1] that I suggested minor changes to the page that might improve NPOV, in order to remove this flag. I was just trying to guess at what the flagging editor might have thought since no specifics were offered. The requests were accepted but the flag removal was declined without any detail except to repeat the exact “advertising” language of the template.

Since then, no one has started a decision to justify the flag (nor was any discussion started by the editor placing the flag at any time since November 2023.) I think that’s because there’s nothing specific to point to unless one were to argue, contrary to Wikipedia policy, that the existence of a page about any product in and of itself is advertising

At this point, it seems the flag might be being used punitively, contrary to WP:TC “Cleanup tags are meant to be temporary notices that lead to an effort to fix the problem, not a permanent badge of shame”.

There’s been ample opportunity to start a discussion with some specifics. I’ve offered multiple times to address anything and even guessed at tweaks I thought might help. The flag serves no purpose if the Talk page is silent on what actually might improve the page. Brucemyboy1212 (talk) 17:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the material in the present article appears to be paraphrased from the material in the 'About' section of the company's website, I think it's fair to say that concerns that the article here 'reads like an advertisement' are not unfounded. Axad12 (talk) 11:58, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply] This is categorically false. All content on the page is reliably sourced to an article in a high-quality, independent publication. All the stories are written by professional journalists who did original reporting. There are seven in-depth profiles of the company and one product review (allowable under WP:PRODUCTREV) There are no press release rewrites among the sources, no sponsored content. All of the language follows WP:NPOV. This is like complaining that the About page on the personal website of an individual overlaps in biographical details with an in-depth profile of the person in a high-quality newspaper. Brucemyboy1212 (talk) 16:31, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply] It is true that the History part of the present article appears to paraphrase very strongly from here [2]. The problem that that creates is that the article is written in a tone which is a very long way from that expected in Wikipedia. To give a further example, half of the article is just a detailed description of the features of the product, the effect of which is clearly promotional. One of the statements in the article simply records that there was an increased demand for chairs during COVID, which has nothing to do with this product specifically and again appears promotional. To be honest, the various comments I've made here pretty much cover the entirety of the article. The point you make above about the sourcing is irrelevant. I have no problem with the sourcing, only with the text of the article. I made no comment about the sourcing, that is just a straw man argument. You have asked for comment on whether the article reads like an advertisement and whether the tag should be removed. Apologies if you do not like the answer but I think you will find it is one that will be echoed by other non involved users. Hopefully this post clarifies the nature of the concerns, which is something that you had asked for. You can either take those comments on board and try to address the issue, or you can continue to claim that the issue doesn't exist. I'd suggest that the former would be the more positive route. Axad12 (talk) 17:08, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply] Smartse, as you originally tagged the article as reading like an advert I just wondered if you'd like to add any thoughts on whether you still feel that that is the case, and whether my post above covers the main points? Any input gratefully received. It does seem to me, I must say, that there are other comments on this talk page which echo similar concerns. Axad12 (talk) 17:24, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a dispute over whether the article contains promotional language and merits a warning template. Brucemyboy1212 (talk) 18:55, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No - There’s been previous discussion around promotional language but none of it has yielded actionable insight about the specific language that reads as promotional or how to write about a company without describing what it makes. In fact, product reviews WP:PRODUCTREV are an integral part of WP:NCORP with the stipulation that “reviews must be independent secondary sources that contain significant coverage of the subject” - a standard that all of the sources on the QOR360 article meet. Through my WP:COI edit requests, the article’s language has been already stripped down considerably and when I compare it to the Products sections of other companies, it seems very spare in comparison: McDonald's#Products, Apple Inc.#Products. Brucemyboy1212 (talk) 18:55, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't feel like an encyclopedia article. Sure, McDonald's#Products is longer, but McDonald's has a lot more products. This is an article about one (1) product. Look at an article for an individual product, like McDonald's Happy Meal or Shamrock Shake. If you want to see a really good article about a name-brand food product, look at Capri-Sun. The first thing I'd suggest changing is the caption: "QOR360 Red Leather Ariel 1.0 Active Chair" sounds like a description for a sales catalog. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:24, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: We have a decent list of chairs that might serve as an aide-memoire for this discussion (needs some tidying, but serviceable: A to Z with a wide number of well known examples in between). The QOR360 article is about a kind of chair, of which we have many (some better than others). It certainly doesn't sound like an advertisement or an overtly promotional CoI job. The language might be improved incrementally (like most things), but it certainly doesn't come off as egregiously promotional to my ear (I've seen much worse). It's not particularly culturally significant as far as chairs go, but the sources indicate notability. What's the specific issue or desired outcome here? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 17:04, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply] The desired outcome is to remove the warning template from the article. Brucemyboy1212 (talk) 13:57, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, it's wildly promotional and needs to be totally rewritten. Just going over the article: The lead focuses solely on who developed it in a way that sells their core story; the history section is completely dedicated to a heart-tugging story about Osler's motivations (and his son!) and reflects only positive news; the Product section emphasizes their "patented technology" and so on. All of this reads like it was written as advertising flack and is completely unencyclopedic in tone; there's barely a single sentence here that, in context, I wouldn't call promotional. The page also omits negative coverage (which, on a quick search, is easy to find); for example, [1][2][3][4] --Aquillion (talk) 16:17, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] To be honest, I think AFD is probably the solution here and a redirect to Active chair or whatever article exists. SmartSE (talk) 16:50, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Why not just add some of the negatives (per Aquillion's helpful reflist), cut back on any egregious promo and keep it? The article is comparable to Balans chair, 40/4 Chair, La-Z-Boy, and many others. It's not entirely without merit, in my view. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 17:58, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Disregarding WP:OTHERSTUFF, of these links, only one article is about a chair design and that won multiple awards and is in multiple museums. That's definitely not the case here. SmartSE (talk) 14:33, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Aquillion, I appreciate your points and have been asking the community for ways to improve this article for a couple years now. I agree that adding criticism of the product would invite more balance into the article and would encourage other editors to contribute. If no one else is interested, I'll suggest that language myself for unbiased review. Maybe a "Criticism" section is warranted. In terms of the History section, it accurately reflects the reporting in the Boston Globe, Wall Street Journal, and NPR. The company's story happens to be that a man with back pain invented (with his son) a chair that he hoped could address back pain. Those facts can't change. But if the language around those should change in order to improve the article, then that's what I hope editors will do. Brucemyboy1212 (talk) 18:21, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have withdrawn the RfC and will continue to suggest improvements to the page through the request edit process. Thank you to all of the editors who provided feedback here.