Talk:Nestlé Purina PetCare/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: DocumentError (talk · contribs) 08:45, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Round 1[edit]
Hi - comments follow. DOCUMENT★ERROR 08:12, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|
1a. (prose)
- "Purina One" is misspelled "Purine One" in the first sentence of "Products and Services."
Done CorporateM (Talk) 12:49, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
1b. (MoS)
- As per MOS:LIST the list of significant brands needs to have some logical organization. It appears (correct me if I'm wrong) to be randomly ordered. Could it be reorganized alphabetically?
- Done CorporateM (Talk) 12:52, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
- As per MOS:JARGON SWOT should be explained or written out, however, it would be really cumbersome to do so here. I recommend either a wikilink to SWOT analysis or simply delete "According to a SWOT analysis by MarketLine ..." and start the sentence after that (keeping the inline ref to the MarketLine report).
- Done I added a wiki-link. CorporateM (Talk) 12:54, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
- In the second paragraph of early history it says "eleven percent" but should be "11 percent." In the last paragraph of the operations section it says "five percent" but should be "5 percent." WP expresses percentages with numerals which, IIRC, is different than AP style which uses letters up to 10 and numerals, thereafter.
- Done CorporateM (Talk) 13:15, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
2a. (ref layout)
- As per WP:ILC it is a general best practice, but not a fast rule, to place inline citations at the end of sentences instead of in the middle of a sentence. But it is a very good practice to do this.
2b. (RS)
- excellent use of RS - no press releases and any references to company website are for self-evident material
2c. (OR)
- nope, no OR here
3a. (broadness)
- considering how recently this subsidiary was formed, there is a very holistic amount of information provided in the article
3b. (focus)
- yes, focused
4. (neutral)
- the use of the word "voluntary" prior to each of the recall instances was going to be an issue, but, on further examination of the references, they used the word "voluntary" as well so that's all fine - good job!
- engaging in a smear campaign could be rewritten as engaging in what it characterized as a "smear campaign" - I realize you were trying to be neutral but, in this instance, I think your admirable efforts led the pendulum to swing too far the opposite direction
- Done CorporateM (Talk) 13:29, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
- All the text in the "Marketing and Advertising" section should be seamlessly incorporated into the history section. There's no policy about this I could find, however, on a cursory review of other GA company articles I couldn't find any examples of a standalone M&A section. It's also confusing as parts of the current history section touch on marketing elements.
- We often do have an advertising, or sponsorship-type section actually for major consumer brands. Check out KFC#Advertising or Burger_King#Advertising CorporateM (Talk) 14:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
5. (stable)
- Good - article wasn't touched for 4 months until the rewrite. Prior to that it had only been incrementally edited.
6a. (free pics)
- seems okay but see 6b
6b. (relevant pics)
- The GA criteria says "illustrated, if possible, by images." There are currently no pics at all outside of the infobox. This makes it a very text-heavy article and cumbersome to read. Even just two pics in the body of the article would be great. Are there a couple product shots that could be thrown in?
- I'll see if I can get some images from Nestle, but it may take a bit due to the holidays. CorporateM (Talk) 13:43, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Round 2[edit]
PASS! DOCUMENT★ERROR 21:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|