Talk:Arconic

Metalworking

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

Pennsylvania Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania 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.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pittsburgh Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pittsburgh, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pittsburgh and its metropolitan area 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.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Nice work!.

North8000 (talk) 12:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:BALASP/Grenfell Tower

@Paul W: I won't revert you (and I'll prbably take this article off my watchlist now) but I think this expansion of the Grenfell Tower section probably fails BALASP. THis is all material that should be in the Grefell Tower fire article but it's too much in the context of this article. A link to that article should be sufficient. This is a very large company and there is no evidence that Grenfell Tower should be such a dominant proportion of this article. It's beginning to have a WP:RGW feel about it. DeCausa (talk) 18:29, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I will not add further to the article in respect of Grenfell. Arconic has been highlighted in numerous reliable sources as one of the most significant contributors to the disaster and some explanation of its specific role is warranted for anyone clicking through from other articles. Best wishes. Paul W (talk) 08:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

That's all good reasons for these issues to have extensive coverage in the fire and inquiry articles. But the question is how significant should it be in the context of an article about the company - it now takes up a third to a half of the article. One measure is looking at the Arconic share price - the inquiry findings have had no impact and in fact it's gone up since the report was released. It's not conclusive by any means but it is one indicator suggesting that the fire hasn't been as important to Arconic as Arconic has been to the fire and the inquiry. DeCausa (talk) 10:30, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I have expanded other parts of the article, mainly focused on the corporate history, so it is slightly less unbalanced by the Grenfell section. Paul W (talk) 16:12, 12 September 2024 (UTC)