Talk:Green marketing/GA1

GA Reassessment[edit]

Individual GAR gone wrong. Had major issues in 2009, now wildly out of date in addition. Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:15, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
This article is in need of reassessment for GA for the following reasons.

The article has numerous {{citations needed}} tags and needs to be properly referenced.
The article uses the first person "we" which is not encyclopedic.

Done Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)}

The article is unorganized in its presentation of material. For example, it quotes Jacquelyn Ottman in two different places, giving this person and her company WP:UNDUE.
The article seems to have an opinion rather than describing the facts regarding "Green marketing". Examples

This new wave of Green Marketing differed from the first wave in many respects. It is curious to note that Green Marketing Wave 1 followed an economic recession, whereas Green Marketing Wave 2 came before the global recession we have come to know as the “Credit Crunch”. This difference may be significant in that it may suggest that Green Marketing is here to stay.

The holistic nature of green also suggests that besides suppliers and retailers new stakeholders be enlisted, including educators, members of the community, regulators, and NGOs. Environmental issues should be balanced with primary customer needs.

The difference is, however, that green—rightfully so—is on the wane as the primary sales pitch for products

A copy edit is needed.

Contractions such as "don't" are in the text.

Done Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)}

There is a formatting error with the headings.

Popularity and effectiveness

Ongoing debate

Done Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)}

Confusion

Done Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)}

Statistics

Done Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)}

The article is not clearly organized.

The section "Green marketing cases" seems like a hodgepodge of cases.

Philips Light's "Marathon"
Car sharing services
Electronics Sector
Introduction of CNG in Delhi

The article concentrates on the U.S., focusing on the American Marketing Association with a wayward mention of Delhi at the end.

Done The US is the leading country in that field and most of the green marketing is happening there. Information about other countries is scarce. Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)}

The article is not clear whether it is focusing on marketing or whether it is advocating green marketing for environmental reasons, or whether green marketers focus on environmental issue as a marketing ploy.
The article touches on legal and environmental problems without really explaining them.

Done. Needless to explain each issue, they will likely have their own pages. Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)}

There are many MoS violations.
There is a list of pr firms as the end under Green Marketing Agencies

Done Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)}

—Mattisse (Talk) 22:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, surely the article has rusted a bit since it was prompted, but I don't think the degradation justifies revocation of its GA status. A bit of time and effort could address all of the issues above, and you can help as well. We are here to build an encyclopedia, so better than arguing about it, lets get down right to it!

Cheers mate!

Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 20:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update, I found one usage of the word "we" and "don't". I removed them along with the respective tag.

Cheers mate!

Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 20:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the article needed citations.
Additionally, the sources used are not reliable sources. For example, what makes these sources reliable?

—Mattisse (Talk) 20:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is on hold for a few days to give you a chance to fix it before it is failed. If you feel this assessment is in error you may submit the article to Good article reassessment for a community assessment. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although writing in between your comment is widely discouraged, I felt that this is the only way to fix the "issues" systematically.

Cheers mate!

Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 12:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a number of issues with this page, including the organization of the article, the stance taken, and the writing in general:

There is plenty of factual information captured in the article (and clearly much research represented), but the author hasn't well separated fact from opinion; for example, his or her representation of the green marketing movement as segregated into a "wave 1" and "wave 2" is NOT an accepted historical distinction in the green marketing or sustainabilty communities, as far as I know. If it is, please cite. If it is the author's original distinction, please remove.
I take issue with the directly plagiarized wording:

These two opening sentences:

According to the American Marketing Association, green marketing is the marketing of products that are presumed to be environmentally safe. Thus green marketing incorporates a broad range of activities, including product modification, changes to the production process, packaging changes, as well as modifying advertising.

are taken verbatim from this article: http://ghanabusinessnews.com/2009/03/31/green-marketing-in-modern-day-business/ -- and I couldn't find this definition apparently cited as "according to the AMA" anywhere on the AMA's website (http://www.marketingpower.com).

The third and fourth sentences:

Yet defining green marketing is not a simple task where several meanings intersect and contradict each other; an example of this will be the existence of varying social, environmental and retail definitions attached to this term. Other similar terms used are Environmental Marketing and Ecological Marketing.

are copied verbatim from a casual user's opinion offered in a trade publication unrelated to green marketing, here: http://www.siliconindia.com/answers_new/Marketing_and_sales/In_marketing_there_is_a_word_‘Green_Marketing’what_is_this-pid-124151249893l8d6st.html.

This is way too weasely for an encyclopedia: "This difference may be significant in that it may suggest that Green Marketing is here to stay."
This is simply not true: "The green marketing concept dictates, amongst other things, less use, recycling and avoiding waste, just some of the ways society reacts at times of recession." Green marketing is a marketing strategy for communicating the environmental benefits of a product, NOT for achieving any environmental benefits.
I'll try to be more constructive as time allows, but I just wanted to raise what I think are some major issues here. Btw, this is my first attempt at weighing in on a talk page, so please let me know how I can better observe any community norms :)

MasterOfTheGlassBeadGame (talk) 03:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update it?[edit]

It appears that this page has not been updated since 2011.

"The legal implications of marketing claims call for caution. Misleading or overstated claims can lead to regulatory or civil challenges. In the United States, the Federal Trade Commission provides some guidance on environmental marketing claims.[3] This Commission is expected to do an overall review of this guidance, and the legal standards it contains, in 2011.[4]" Mrdeleted

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrdeleted (talk • contribs) 07:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.