Hello, SophieStromback, and Welcome to Wikipedia!   

'New Page Request: Adding a new page - Polymateria Hi, I am looking to add a new page to Wikipedia but because of COI I need someone to help me make the changes. I am unable to make the changes myself as I work for Polymateria. I would be very grateful for any feedback and help to approve this new page. I've added this to my sandbox too for any feedback.

Polymateria Ltd is a British privately-owned technology company which develops biodegradable and compostable solutions to tackle plastic pollution. Its proprietary formulation called Biotransformation is time-controlled to break down commonly-littered forms of plastic such as polyethylene and polypropylene should they escape from recycling streams, without creating microplastics.

In 2020, Polymateria became the first company in the world to fully biodegrade the most commonly littered forms of plastic packaging in less than a year in real-world conditions without creating microplastics.

History Polymateria was founded in 2015 by Jonathan Sieff and Lee Davy-Martin in joint development with Imperial College London and is based at the I-HUB in White City Campus. Niall Dunne, former Chief Sustainability Officer of BT Group, is CEO of the company.

In October 2019, Polymateria announced a partnership with specialty chemical company Clariant (now Avient) to bring its Biotransformation technology to market in South East Asia. A subsequent partnership agreement with Clariant announced in January 2020 includes a deal with the Indian Government to bring Biotransformation to India.

In July 2020, Polymateria announced a funding round of £15 million by Planet First Partners (PFP), a long-term impact investment platform led by former Verlinvest founder and CEO Frédéric de Mévius of the De Mévius family behind Anheuser-Busch InBev. The announcement also included expansion of Polymateria’s board to include Frédéric de Mévius and Simon Susman, former CEO and Chairman of Woolworths Holdings and Chairman of Virgin Active Holdings. Former Marks & Spencer CEO Marc Bolland joined as Chairman.

In October 2020, Polymateria sponsored the first standard to measure the biodegradability of polyolefins. The standard, PAS 9017, was developed by a steering group of experts in the field of plastics including Waste and Resource Action Programme (WRAP); Food and Environment Research Agency (Fera); Polymateria; Anglia Ruskin University; Imperial College London; Avient (previously Clariant); Impact Solutions; Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS). It was subject to a public consultation process, where other interested parties submitted comments. It published with consensus of the steering group.

Biotransformation Polymateria’s Biotransformation technology is a bespoke approach to redesigning plastic packaging at point of manufacture. It works with pure materials capable of full and safe return to nature without damaging the waste hierarchy of reduce, reuse and recycle.

The technology can be time-controlled to Biotransform the hard crystalline and amorphous structure into a wax-like material through multiple chemical reactions achieving carbon-carbon bond scission, ensuring no microplastics. Its proprietary use of ‘synthetic’ prebiotic attracts microbes, funghi and bacteria to fully consume the wax-like material in real-world mesophilic conditions, producing biomass and leaving behind no ecotoxicity issues or microplastics.

In July 2020, Polymateria announced that on a range of the most-littered forms of packaging – polyethylene and polypropylene – independent third-party laboratory testing achieved 100% biodegradation on a rigid plastic container in 336 days and film material in 226 days. This was done in real-world mesophilic conditions. The process needed no industrial composting facilities and left no microplastics behind, nor did it cause any environmental harm in the process.

Biotransformation is fully compatible with the circular economy and the three-Rs (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle) and incorporates a fourth R of Redesign. The technology is proven at independent labs to be fully recyclable per Association of Plastic Recyclers (APR) and Plastic Recyclers Europe (PRE) guidelines and has been proven at independent labs to have no impact on recycling streams at scale.

Biotransformation works with a wide range of plastic types including: • Injection moulded or thermoformed PP: as found in clear plastic containers from a supermarket delicatessen. • Injection moulded PP or LDPE: the lids of plastic bottles, such as for soft drinks or cleaning products, are often made of this material. • Mono and multi-layer PP, LLDPE, LDPE: thin plastic bags, the nets in which fruit is packaged and ready-meal wrappings are often made of this. • Mono and multi-layer BOPP: candy wrappers, cigarette film, bakery products and flower sleeves. • Non-woven PP: facemasks, tea bags and wipes.

See also • Circular economy • Biodegradation • Microplastics

Side panel

Type Private limited company

Founded 2015 Headquarters I-HUB, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom

Area served Worldwide Key people Niall Dunne (CEO) Dr Christopher Wallis (VP, Innovations) Marc Bolland (Chairman) Frédéric de Mévius (Board) Simon Susman (Board) Jonathan Sieff (Founder) Lee Davy-Martin (Founder) Products Biotransformation formulation; Masterbatch

Number of employees 30 (2020) Website https://www.polymateria.com/

SophieStromback ( talk) 15:23, 11 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Greetings SophieStromback,

so I've implemented that edit you requested. However, I'll likely be making some further changes to bring the wording more in line with WP:NPOV. I don't think the article is bad, but I kinda "adopt" most articles I have contributed to, and try to keep them as good or better.

As for your request above - I'm inclined to accept it as well, because when reading up I found enough sources that would qualify Polymateria for notability. I've done my own search in addition to the ones on your company's home page news room, and found a few more or better ones (The Daily Mail for example is not accepted here, but the Prince of Wales has it on his own web page, too). Side note: This link from your newsroom resolves to nothing, but was saved by the Wayback machine here so I could use it. Still, it's probably not in your company's interest to have such a dead link on your web page.

Problem: I am not the most experienced author, so if you already found someone else to write the article, I wouldn't mind stepping back. However, in case I am the sole volunteer for now, I would very much prefer to write the article myself from the ground up. I would gladly use your suggestion as a structure, but I'd personally feel weird if I just copied it. And be aware that writing articles might take a while with me, I'm not the quickest person ^^

And as an addition to the last paragraph: Be careful what you wish for! If I create that article (and probably regardless of who creates it), I will make sure to also include criticism on it with due weight. Luckily, atm you folks don't seem to get much bad press; but if you did, it would land here too. I assume since you declared your COI and all you are serious and well aware of that, but I just wanted to reiterate that. -- LordPeterII ( talk) 20:27, 13 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Thank you LordPeterII !! Firstly a big thank you for approving the changes on Niall Dunne's page and secondly thank you for taking on the task of creating the Polymateria page. I hugely appreciate it! Is there anything I can do to help you or lessen the workload for you when creating the Polymateria page?

P.s. Thanks for spotting the deadlink as well :)

SophieStromback ( talk) 09:34, 15 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Hi again LordPeterII, another thought I had, would it please be possible to read your drafted version for the Polymateria page before you publish it? SophieStromback ( talk) 15:28, 15 December 2020 (UTC) reply

@ SophieStromback: Well of course. Basically anything is visible on Wikipedia if you know where to look, there are no real "private" pages. I'll probably do it in draft space this time anyway, and I'll just leave a link to the WIP here once I start it. -- LordPeterII ( talk) 09:39, 16 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Fabulous, thanks again LordPeterII and as said if you need anything from me please do let me know! SophieStromback ( talk) 16:40, 16 December 2020 (UTC) reply

So I have started the article here: Draft:Polymateria

You can follow it and make comments (probably best on the draft talk page there); I will try to implement them.

About what you can do: I might need more sources. On the Dunne article, I have flagged two paragraphs as missing sources (they are not important to Polymateria, under "Other interests"). More importantly, I can't seem to find the basic company history anyway, so the sentence "Polymateria was founded in 2015 by Jonathan Sieff and Lee Davy-Martin" you suggested can currently not be sourced (I don't even find it on the Polymateria website). I am quite confident that this is correct, but for it to appear on Wikipedia I would need a source. Maybe I have overlooked it? If you could point me to it or find one for that, that'd be great. -- LordPeterII ( talk) 20:01, 16 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Hi LordPeterII, I have references here for Niall Dunne's page: the Collectively point ^[1] and the running ^[2]

And as for the Polymateria page and the "Polymateria was founded in 2015 by Jonathan Sieff and Lee Davy-Martin" this reference should cover it: ^[3]

Let me know if any you need help finding any other references :)

Thanks, added them. I'm on a semi-break from Wikipedia until sometime in the new year, so the draft will take a while to finish. But I'll get to it. -- LordPeterII ( talk) 15:11, 26 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Hi LordPeterII, Hope you've had a good festive period!

I was just looking through the draft page and wanted to highlight that Polymateria do not offer compostable solutions but solely biodegradable solutions. :)

Hope you have a lovely start to the new year, here's hoping for a more optimistic 2021! Speak in the new year :)

All the best, SophieStromback ( talk) 11:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Hi SophieStromback,

I invite you to read through the now mostly finished article Draft:Polymateria before I will submit it for review. It now differs quite a bit from your draft, and if it's missing information that is most likely because I could not reference it. One notable thing I lack a source for is the "number of employees" - I believe you know the correct number, but it's mentioned nowhere on your company website afaik. Unless you can provide some source for that, I will have to remove that info. -- LordPeterII ( talk) 12:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Oh and one more thing SophieStromback: I think the article could benefit greatly from some pictures - if you can donate any (under a free license), e.g. of your main building, your laboratory or whatever, I could add them to the article. -- LordPeterII ( talk) 19:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Addendum: This also applies to your company logo. I have no special interest in having it on the page, but you probably do. Wikipedia features the logo of most major companies because those are not subject to copyright restrictions, but trademark restrictions instead (check out American ones here and British ones here). However, I am just a regular guy and not willing to get into potential lawsuits over this - so if you want it in the article, once again I invite you to upload it yourself (maybe check in with the company first) from e.g. your website here :) -- LordPeterII ( talk) 19:41, 21 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Hi SophieStromback, I have not heard back from you and assume you might no longer be active on Wikipedia. I am submitting the article for review now, but if you read this, you might still consider the suggestion about providing images. -- LordPeterII ( talk) 11:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Hi LordPeterII, Sorry about my delayed response, could you please hold off publishing it while I review? I appreciate the time you've taken to put it together. There are a few adjustments I suggest before it is published: - can we add more information on the tech and the applications it can be used for as in the text I submitted? - the text regarding critisms is unproportionably large with a lot of unsubstantiated claims and could we change the subtitle to something other than critisms e.g. Media coverage? Let me also see if I can get an image and get back to you before anything is published. Best, Sophie

Hi SophieStromback, no problem. The article will actually not be published by me since I wrote it, I only submitted it to be reviewed by an experienced editor. This can take up to 3 months so it might be a while till it goes live. That probably wasn't clear from my explanations - so there's still time to edit it, and actually there's time to edit after it goes live, too ^^

I'd be happy to include more on the tech, but this is an article about your company for the general public, so imo it should not overwhelm the reader with too many details. If they are interested in knowing more, they can probably inquire this from your company. Also, I'm afraid I can not find such detailed information on the process as in your text. I am sure it is correct, but again, I can only quote what's readily available from third parties unrelated to you (I can reference basic facts like to your website, but that's about it). If you know of a news or study that goes into detail on it, please provide a link to it as usual.

As for criticism, I agree it is quite prominent. However, I feel like there is a lot of talk and criticism about biodegradable plastics involving the standard/Polymateria, and I found this just by searching for "Polymateria". I do not believe "media coverage" would properly fit the content, but maybe there are alternatives like "controversy". Anyway, if you read the content of the section you will find that I very much agree that the criticism is unwarranted and - in parts - completely stupid (why warn about microplastics if the whole point is that there are none?!), and I believe I have made that clear enough. But yeah, as I warned you, we strive to be impartial about anything, so the controversy section will have to stay I'm afraid. You may suggest some changes within, and the rest of the article can be expanded so that it takes up less space relative to the rest. Finally, articles about companies have a high probability to get rejected (or, if circumventing the review, deleted) after creation because they are promotional. With such a prominent criticism section, I believe that would be quite unlikely and improve its chances of survival.

But yeah, take your time and provide input on some details, and I'll see what I can do. And having images would be splendid, I feel like that's generate more interest for the casual reader than a lot of technical stuff :) -- LordPeterII ( talk) 22:04, 1 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Hi LordPeterII,

This has helped a lot, thanks for explaining it to me, beginning to get the grips of the process :)

With regards to the technical side of things, I found this article : [1] It explains how the crystalline structure is broken down to produce a wax and lowers the molecular weight to much less than 5000 Da. Additionally, how it focuses on polyethylene and polypropylene. Could this article can be useful in adding some more details on how the technology works? Let me know if you want me to help structure the technical text or want any input from me.

Although prominent, I also agree with you that the criticism section you’ve written is very well-balanced with arguments and counterarguments which I fully appreciate. There are only a few additions I would suggest if you agree:

• Could we add Dr Dannielle Green from Anglia Ruskin University’s quote in the National Geographic article [2] regarding standards in addition to the paragraph about the 40 companies criticising the standard. She provides a quote about in the article about the need for a standard being recognised by the UK and that the standards landscape is everchanging, she also states that “the standard is a step in the right direction, and the interdisciplinary collaborative approach used by BSI is exemplary”. Could we add her feedback on the standard to this section as she is a prominent ecologist who has done work in the microplastics field? I think it would help create a more balanced view as well as provide an insight to the nature of standards. Let me know your thoughts.
• Additionally, the BSI published an FAQ page to verify the erroneous claims by the 40 organisations. The BSI issued this FAQ section because of the erroneous info that was fed through by external parties. I have added a link to the FAQs, perhaps it would be worth mentioning that this FAQ exists? I will let you decide if you think this is something we could weave into the text: [3]
• The final update to the last paragraph that I would suggest is mentioning the ‘recycle by date’ which is highlighted in the National Geographic and Guardian article. The idea that the consumer is empowered to make the right choice by adding a recycle by date, very similar to an expiration date that you would see on non-durable goods. I have added the links to the National Geographic and Guardian article here: [4] and [5]

Thirdly, I have this link here to a video PillowTalk with Robin Wright and Elizabeth Von Der Goltz talking about sustainable fashion where Robin Wright also highlights that her brand Pour Les Femmes will be working with Polymateria. Timestamp - 06:23. [6] This might be a useful source if we can add a mention on the Wikipage either about working with them or highlighting one of the applications it can be used for i.e. polybags.

Finally, I have manged to get the logo up on WikiCommons – this is the link for using the logo: [File:Polymateria-logo.png|thumb|Polymateria logo]

Give me a shout regarding your thoughts and as always let me know how I can be of assistance to you!

Have a lovely weekend and speak again soon! Sophie

Hi SophieStromback, these are very reasonable suggestions; I'll go through them one by one.

• Worldofchemicals article: While this is not the perfect source (Mr Dunne talking about it himself), I believe this would be okayish to use. However, I do not understand the technical aspect here I'm afraid - could you explain quickly what the molecular weight comparison is meant to illustrate? I assume it has something to do with microplastics, but as a non-chemist I do not quite grasp it.
• Dr Dannielle Green: Yes, that statement can certainly be added. I have quoted the article numerous times already (it's quite good), but have missed that. Yep that would better show how conservationists were on both side on the criticism.
• BSI FAQ: The FAQ looks good as well - that could be added to the paragraph about how the Polymateria tech is not oxo-degradeable (kinda the "counter-criticism").
• Recycle-by date: I've already mentioned the "recycle-by date" somewhere I think, but yes that could be moved there or reiterated.
• Video: I'm afraid this is the only one I must decline. There's an inherent difficulty in quoting videos (it's only allowed under certain circumstances), and videos are also very likely to disappear from the web over time as they can't be saved by the Internet Archive on which we otherwise rely. If Pour Les Femmes ever releases a press statement in text form or sth, that could be quoted.
• Logo: Thanks, that's what I meant. The file is just missing some copyright tags (to indicate that it is free to use on Wikipedia, but still a trademark of your company so not free to use for anyone in any context). I shall add them. Feel free to upload some regular pictures as well as I suggested (e.g. of your headquarter building or sth), but for these you will need to specify the license yourself during uploading as I can not add them to regular photos myself (most likely you will want something like CC-BY).

Also, a few technical Wikipedia things:

• Your urls are showing up broken - I could follow them, but needed to manually delete the "duplicate" first. You do not need to use the format [<url>:<url>], it suffices to simply write [<url>].
• Please remember to sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~), as only with that it will generate a notification for me.

I am currently somewhat busy but will implement the changes next week or so. Oh, and you have a nice weekend, too! -- LordPeterII ( talk) 13:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Hi LordPeterII,

Thanks for considering the edits. With regards to the technical side of things I’ve explained some of the key points below (if anything is unclear or you have any questions let me know):

Important to mention that the crystalline structure within the polymer is broken apart. This is one of the ways in which Polymateria’s technology is different to previous biodegradable claims which struggled to break apart the hard-crystalline regions in a polymer. Polymateria’s technology breaks apart the amorphous region as well as the crystalline region. Dalton is the universal unit measurement of molecular weight. Bacteria and fungi are able to break down and recycle the material back to nature if the material adheres to the criteria listed in the PAS 9017, one of them being it having a number average molecular weight (Mn) of 5000 Da or less.

The technology is also time controlled so that the technology can be triggered within a certain timeframe which gives the product an appropriate service life and also gives the plastic a chance to be recycled. The technology acting as a safeguard if it ends up in the natural world either through littering or falling out of the waste/recycle management stream.

I am checking to see if there are any images that would be good to use and I’ll get back to you on that.

Thanks for the Wikipedia tips too! 😊 SophieStromback ( talk) 12:35, 10 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Hi SophieStromback,

okay I believe I have grasped the molecular weight thing now. Please take a look at the draft and tell me if I have worded it correctly.

I think I have included all of your suggestions now, but ofc you can still give feedback. I've actually gone ahead and uploaded a .svg logo myself because that should scale better with different resolutions. But you having uploaded it before has reassured me that your company has nothing against that (which really it shouldn't, but yeah I'm a bit cautious around copyright). I am looking forward to hearing from you about the pictures, and am otherwise now just waiting for the draft to be approved (sadly the backlog seems to have grown, so now the estimate is up to 4 months). -- LordPeterII ( talk) 14:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Hi LordPeterII, Yes, looks good! Thanks for sorting the logo out (and I can confirm that Polymateria are all fine with it being used :) )

There is just one minor tweak I would ask for in the technical text, in the line "The company has developed a technology called Biotransformation, which involves adding certain chemicals to plastics during production to aid their decomposition" instead of chemicals could you write ...involves adding a bespoke masterbatch... as this is the term used for additives that alter the property of a plastic. The Wikipedia page for masterbatches is found here.

As for the picture, I am just confirming that the photographer is ok with us using it on Wikipedia. Should be able to get back to you on that hopefully by the end of this week.

All the best, SophieStromback ( talk) 11:03, 18 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Hi LordPeterII,

I have confirmation on an image we can use however I am not so clued up on the copyright tags. This is an image that Polymateria own (and are happy to have on the Wikipedia page). Preferably it would not be used by others for other articles. Not sure which copyright tag or licence is the most appropriate and hoping that you could perhaps point me in the right direction?

Thanks! SophieStromback ( talk) 15:54, 25 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Hi SophieStromback,

sorry for the delay in answering, was busy irl. As for the suggested text change: Maybe, but idk if that's really needed. That the technology is in form of a masterbatch is mentioned both in the infobox and further down the text, and I feel that for a layperson it is easier to grasp if first described as "chemicals". Might not be as technically accurate, but Wikipedia is written mostly for laypersons imo.

As for the image: That's good to hear, but I'm afraid you can not license it this way: Everything on Wikipedia, with a few very specific and very rare exceptions, is fully usable by anyone else. That's why I was thinking of something more generic that you wouldn't mind seeing someone else use, like e.g. a view of your headquarter's building. This should should tell you which licenses are available for you to chose from. Of these, CC-BY-SA is the most restrictive afaik, but notably it still allows the image to be used by anyone, even commercially. So if you are worried about someone sharing or making money off your picture, better not upload it.

I understand these terms might not be ideal for a company, but yeah Wikipedia is not tailored to specific needs. Frankly the article is fine without a picture; I just personally feel like a picture makes it easier to read through an article. So check if one of these licenses are acceptable for you, and if not, well then not. I'm pretty happy with the current state of the article, and am looking forward to it eventually being reviewed and (likely, hopefully) accepted. -- LordPeterII ( talk) 22:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Hi LordPeterII,

Not a worry at all! Hope all is well with you!

Another reason we would prefer 'bespoke masterbatch' being used over 'chemicals' is because chemicals was the term used to describe what was added for the oxo-biodegradation process which produced microplastics. There is a bit of worry that someone reading it might dismiss our technology as oxo-biodegradation or associate it.

As for the image, thank you for all the information on copyright - this is useful. I will revert back to you on it because I agree that it would be a nice to add an image.

Additionally, I wanted to highlight some more publications Polymateria have been in over the past two weeks which would be great if we could weave into the Wikipedia article.

There has been another video released highlighting Pour Les Femmes work with Polymateria but remember you saying that videos are not good for referencing. I have this article from Imperial which also mentions our work with Pour Les Femme .

The Telegraph has also released an article highlighting in particular the technologies compatibility with recycling.

Best, SophieStromback ( talk) 11:25, 2 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Hi SophieStromback,

okay I will reconsider the masterbatch-thingy, but no guarantees. The articles are nice, yeah that's usable for Pour Les Femmes, and the Telegraph for what you said. I might not get to adding it in the next few weeks, but as mentioned before there's no hurry really. Eventually I'll get to it. -- LordPeterII ( talk) 23:48, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Hi LordPeterII,

Great, thanks - no rush because as you say the article will probably be under review for some time to come, fingers crossed it won't be too long till it is reviewed though :)

I have also managed to get a picture from our labs and the visit from the Prince of Wales on the Wikipedia Commons:

Let me know if you need anything else from me. Hope you have a good weekend and also again want to say a big thanks for the work you've put into this and the Wikipedia guidance you've provided me as a Wikipedia-beginner with, it is and has been much appreciated!

Hi SophieStromback,

some question on the picture: You indicate that the author is Kevin Leighton, which Google tells me is a professional photographer. Since originally he (and not Polymateria) is the author of that picture, do you have his consent that the picture can be on Wikimedia Commons? Just double-checking because I think technically it's the photographer's call to license it. But I see it's the same one used by the National Geographic article where it's credited to Polymateria, so I guess it's alright. And frankly I'm not an expert in this whole copyright-area... so I'll take it since you have uploaded it :)

Can you maybe amend the caption though, to indicate that the other person is Christopher Wallis, and that the cup on the table is of your plastic material? Then I could state that in the article; otherwise people will doubt it. (like in the National Geographic article here)

Will get to the text editing soonish. -- LordPeterII ( talk) 17:09, 12 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Hi LordPeterII,

Yes, can confirm that we emailed the photographer Kevin and received his consent to add the picture to Wikipedia so that should be all good. Let me edit the caption now :)

SophieStromback ( talk) 16:47, 16 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Hi LordPeterII,

I tried to update the caption but without much luck. How would I change the caption? I tried updating it to "The Prince of Wales visiting the Polymateria labs at the Imperial i-Hub and President of Innovation Dr Christopher Wallis (right) showing a cup made of the material." on Wikipedia commons but without any success...

SophieStromback ( talk) 16:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Hi LordPeterII, As always hope you are doing alright!

We've had another exciting partnership revealed publicly which I wanted to share with you, that being our work together with the Extreme E races taking place this spring. Adding a link to it here. I was hoping a mention of this could be incorporated into the article as a new partnership? SophieStromback ( talk) 11:51, 25 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Hi SophieStromback,

I'm finally back, more or less. I see you have successfully changed the caption, nice. However, I've recently had some trouble with a picture that was uploaded to Wikipedia - it's good to know that you have the photographer's consent, but we probably need to have that explicitly stated for Wikipedia. Thus, could you contact Kevin Leighton and ask him to send this email template here to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org with the appropriate choices made? This would clear any doubts about the legitimacy of the upload.

I shall try to add the remaining info to the article now. Tbh I'm surprised it is still not accepted yet... I'll see if I can speed this up a little. We've been patient enough now.

-- LordPeterII ( talk) 09:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Hi LordPeterII, Welcome back!! Long time no speak! Hope you are well! :D

I will go ahead and ask Kevin to send that email template to Wikipedia now.

Yes I agree, the reviewing stage has been lengthy so if you can pull any strings to speed up the reviewing the process that would be fantastic - thanks!

SophieStromback ( talk) 10:39, 5 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Hi LordPeterII, Just dropping you a note to let you know that Kevin (the photographer) has sent that email template off to Wikipedia approving the use of the image. Have you had any luck speeding up the review process? SophieStromback ( talk) 14:02, 24 May 2021 (UTC) reply

@ SophieStromback: Good news! It finally got approved: -> Polymateria <-

After previous attempts led to nothing, I wrote a sort of rant yesterday and someone took pity, reviewed it and moved it to mainspace. I know this has probably been as frustrating for you as it has been for me, but thanks for sticking with me and abiding by our rules (instead of resolving to hiring a paid editor to write a promotional blurb, like so many other companies do, forcing volunteers to spend considerable time finding and deleting/rewriting those). Your interaction with Wikipedia/me has been very professional (and polite) from the start, and I am pleased that you finally have something to show for it :)

Best wishes to you and Polymateria! -- LordPeterII ( talk) 06:11, 23 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Just a note, I am not sure if the image and the email have been connected as intended. No one tagged or removed the picture yet, but I've seen it happen before. I will check why it doesn't look as it should when I have time (and, frankly, motivation – I'm gonna do some more fun stuff first ^^). Thus it would probably be good if you'd stick around for a while, so I could reach you in case there's something else you or the photographer have to do. Cheers! -- LordPeterII ( talk) 06:24, 23 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Hi LordPeterII, This is fantastic news - thank you so much for you help (and your very kind words, I repeat the sentiment towards you too :) )! Had a google of the page and it is very exciting to see the Wiki page appear under the Google search!!

Yes, I will continue to check my Wikipedia account so do reach out whenever you need anything. There have also been some updates within and around Polymateria e.g. WRAP retracted their statements and some exciting work we did in Senegal with Extreme E. If you are ok with looking through some of the updates around Polymateria and happy to incorporate where and what you deem appropriate on the Wikipedia page I am happy to collate a list of some of the updates that might be worthy of being in the article so that things are up-to-date, I can share them on here with you once I've put the list together.

Once again big thanks for pushing that review process!! SophieStromback ( talk) 15:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Hi SophieStromback, sure, feel free to compile a list of some news that you think should be included. However, that likely will be the last time I actively maintain the article since it now is in mainspace and open to other editors (some of which have already edited it), and I'm drawn to other projects. If you want something added again in say half a year from now, I suggest you resort to the good old Edit Request mechanism. Might be slow, but it will work (remember, I originally found your request about Niall Dunne). -- LordPeterII ( talk) 09:22, 7 July 2021 (UTC) reply