Talk:Publishers Clearing House/GA2

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

• Comments have already be raised about the concerns of the last review and they were dismissed by the reviewer. I'm therefore opening a new review. Pyrotec (talk) 07:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments

• I opened this review (well now five days ago) since, from a quick glance, the WP:Lead was visible non-compliant. However, I'm going to leave the Lead until last: I'm going to start at the History section, work my way to the end and then go back and do the lead. Pyrotec (talk) 20:08, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good! Do you mean because the lead is a bit long? CorporateM (Talk) 21:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I always do the lead last, because the lead should both introduce the topic of the article and summarise the main points, so it makes sense to me to do it last. It's also supossed to stand alone from the article. This one certainly does not, due to the presence of "(See "Prize Patrol" section, below).", "(See "Government Regulation" section, below)" and "(See "Online Development" section, below).". Pyrotec (talk) 15:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Bilbobag, do you mind if I take those out? I could be mistaken, but I think you put the "see also" type comments in the lead? CorporateM (Talk) 18:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Corp: No problem removing those. Bilbobag (talk) 20:54, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done

• History -

• Sorry for the further delay, my computer "died" last weekend, it was Thursday (yeserday) of this week before I was back up again. Pyrotec (talk) 15:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for picking up the review! CorporateM (Talk) 21:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Fell free to add coments, questions, objections, etc, but if they are about a particular section or subsection of the article, it helps me if they are are adding to relevant bullet (*)-pointed subsection(s) of this review. Thanks for your contributions. Pyrotec (talk) 19:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• History (re-started) -
  • Early history -

• In the second paragraph, I would suggest that the second part of the sentence "The first prizes ranged from 25 cents to $10 and had a 1 in 10 chance of winning." needs clarifying. I assume, it is saying that anyone entering (I'm using "entering" as a neutral term insead of "buying" because that controversy comes up later in the article) has a one in ten chance of winning a prize (not, for example a 1 in 10 chance of winning $10). It could also mean, to use the figures given in the first paragraph, if 10,000 envelopes were sent out there would be 1,000 prizes; however, there were only 100 orders (1% take up), so on that basis a 1 in 10 chance of winning could suggest that only 10 prizes would need to be offered (so if a 1% take up is envisaged, only 0.1% prizes need to be offered). Note: there is no information about take-up rates in respect of "return of forms" and "purchases", but I'm going to ignore the differences for now.

•  Done I added "entrants" to clarify it was one out of every 10 entrants CorporateM (Talk) 19:56, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• In the second paragraph, what does "..... the prizes were increased[10] to $5,000[8] and eventually to $250,000.[12]" mean. Are those maximum prizes, i.e. the $10 maximum prize went up to $5,000 and eventually to $250,000, or is it saying that only $5,000 and later $250,000 prizes were offered?

•  Done The sources weren't specific as to whether these were maximums or whatnot. The NYT source used the term "the jackpot" which might also work. I just changed it to "larger prizes were offered" CorporateM (Talk) 20:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• It not clear, where Publishers Clearing House did its "selling". It's clear for example that it was based in Port Washington, NY and that the first mailings were of 10,000 envelopes from Long Island, but were did they go (NY obviously), but would I get one if I lived in Chicago, or London (UK)? Note: later in the Lawsuits subsection, it states "Publishers Clearing House reached settlements with all fifty states" so perhaps it does cover the whole of the USA, but it does not seem to say so (perhaps I've not got that far through the article).

• They are national now, but I think the source may specifically say those first 10,000 envelopes were just in New York. Let me find the book in my closet and look it up. CorporateM (Talk) 20:07, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

•  Not done Unfortunately the book just says they mailed out 10,000 envelopes, doesn't say to what state/country. CorporateM (Talk) 15:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• • Lawsuits & Online development -

• These two subsections look OK, but whilst I was reading it I added one wikilink to each of the subsections (class action & The Hershey Company).

• Products -

• The first paragraph is three sentences long, and the second paragraph is only one sentence long, I suggest that they be combined into one paragraph.

•  Done CorporateM (Talk) 20:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• Neither of these two paragraphs makes it clear where it (Publishers Clearing House) "sells", is "best known" and "operates". Are we talking US-wide, just the US and nowhere else? Note: again the next section is about Government regulation and first 14 states and then 32 states are mentioned, so perhaps its not US-wide?

• I'm not quite sure how to handle that - since many of their sweepstakes are done online now, I would imagine anyone with an internet connection could participate, but I'll see if I can find geographic information regarding where the mailings are sent. CorporateM (Talk) 15:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• If it helps, I've just read one of the citations which states that they operate in the US and Canada. I was looking at Government regulation at the time (or, possibly, the start of Sweepstakes). Pyrotec (talk) 16:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• The final paragraph looks OK.

....stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 19:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• I've decided to come back to this section and I'm going a suggest a minor copyedit. If I've understood the article correctly: "Publishers Clearing House is a direct-marketing company that sells merchandise, magazine subscriptions and operates several prize-based websites.[13] While best known for its sweepstakes and Prize Patrol,[1][22][15] the majority of the company's ....." could be better expressed as: "Publishers Clearing House is a direct-marketing company that sells merchandise, magazine subscriptions and operates several prize-based websites.[13] While best known for its the sweepstakes and Prize Patrol,[1][22][15] associated with these operations, the majority of the company's ....". However, I might be wrong and I can't write in American English, so this is only a suggestion. Pyrotec (talk) 16:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• How about "While best known for the sweepstakes and Prize Patrol it uses to promote its magazine subscriptions." "associated with its operations" is a little awkward. CorporateM (Talk) 16:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• Not a problem. As a reviewer it would be very wrong if I tried to force my words into the article during a review, so I make suggestions and (mostly) leave it at that. Pyrotec (talk) 16:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• Two Questions for Pyrotec and CorporateM. First, in the Lead it is stated- "It acquired Blingo Inc. in 2006, which was rebranded into PCH Search and Win.". In the Online Development section we repeat this "In 2006, it acquired Blingo Inc., an ad-supported search engine that was later re-branded as PCH Search and Win", and then in the Products section it states "Publishers Clearing house operates eight websites, including PCH Search and Win,...". While, factual, is this a bit too promotional with regard to "PCH Search and Win"? The next question has to do with Products. The article correctly states that PCH "sells merchandise, magazine subscriptions and operates several prize-based websites." In fact, PCH also sells, and generates significant revenue from, the sale of names on its mailing lists. While this isn't a consumer product, but rather a business product, PCH is known in the direct marketing industry for its mailing lists. PCH's Alex Betancourt acknowledges this in the last sentence of the Online Development section. Since this section is titled Products, and begins with "Publishers Clearing House is a direct-marketing company that sells ...", should we not also include "mailing lists" as one of its products? In addition to the current sources, I can find others that show the quantity and types of names and mailing lists that PCH offers to the marketplace. Bilbobag (talk) 21:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The Lead will have some repetition with the body of the article, because it's intended to summarize the article's content. The mailing lists was already discussed at length here. CorporateM (Talk) 21:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Corp. Understand about the Lead. With regard to the mailing lists, the previous discussion was about using a vendor sight as a source. What I'm saying, is that the current article quotes PCH's Betancur who states that PCH's intent is to collect information, "and use the registration information for PCH’s mailing lists.". PCH is a direct marketing company, lists are developed and sold by direct marketing companies, and PCH's VP has stated this in the article. Further, on its own website, PCH acknowledges that "PCH may also pass customer names on to other organizations whose offers may be of interest to the consumer" (See: http://info.pch.com/consumer-information/safe-harbor-privacy-policy). Since this is the "Products" section, and since these lists are sold (or rented) as a revenue generating product, should they not be included. If we fail to do so, are we living up to Wiki's "Comprehensive" policy?Bilbobag (talk) 22:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The New York Times only says that PCH collects registration information for their own purposes, which is included, not that the registrations are sold to others. The disclaimer on the website only says that they "may" and as DGG said regarding the other sources, it does not substantiate whether this is a significant part of their operations. Being "comprehensive" is not a good rationale for using primary sources and original synthesis. I believe the original discussion is still relevant.

However, my suggestion would be - if you feel strongly - you should start a fresh string on the regular Talk page and invite those that participated in the original discussion to re-evaluate based on your new arguments. I believe I may remember North adding a proper secondary source that said something about this a long time ago. Keep in mind, it may be that they do sell registration information, maybe even at a large scale - I am only privy to the information available in the sources.

However, I would reiterate my general unwillingness to micro-manage the page. I feel this format of an editor asking for my permission or feedback before making edits leads to a combative and/or poor relationship, because it makes editors feel like they can't make edits without the PR rep's permission. My hope would be that in the future you edit the article boldly, in a neutral manner using secondary sources, without my input. In this case since it was already discussed and there was a clear consensus in the opposite direction, I think the right thing for you to do is re-engage the editors that were involved in the discussion originally.

A few other places to get feedback would the Teahouse, the reliable sources noticeboard, or by requesting a mentor. I myself have been graced with several editors acting in a mentor role and believe most editors should have someone they call a mentor.

Hopefully this is helpful? CorporateM (Talk) 23:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• Government regulation -

• There seems to be a word, perhaps more, missing from: "Publicity in 1997 about a contestant of competitor American Family Publishers, who flew to Tampa, Florida thinking he had won, resulted in more lawsuits for both companies.[8]".

•  DoneI think the main problem was that it was a run-on. I broke it up into two sentences. CorporateM (Talk) 16:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• Sweepstakes -

• This section looks OK.

• WP:Lead -

• Not a bad lead at all. I opened this review as the lead "stuck out", but recent changes have improved it considerably.
• As per my comment above, the second paragraph is only two sentences long and it would fit quite nicely merged onto the start of the current third paragraph. This would give a three paragraph lead (the requirement is three or four).

 Done paragraphs merged

• The lead should both introduce the topic and summarise the main points. It probably acheives those twin goals quite well. It mentions some of the controversies and legal difficalties, I'm not sure whether these are played "low key" or not. I don't have a strong view either way.
• The prize patrol gets mentioned twice, in the first and second paragraphs. I'd suggest a minor rewrite as repetition in the lead is not "liked". Perhaps it could be removed from the first paragraph and possibly "highlighted" in the middle paragraph, as a means of distinguishing Publishers Clearing House from its rival American Family Publishers.

 Done I consolidated the two sentences a bit. CorporateM (Talk) 23:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your cooperation in addressing these issues. I'm not closing this review; and the article retains its GA's status. Pyrotec (talk) 16:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Congratulations on getting this article up to GA-status, and for jumping for the "hoops" of GAN/GAR twice in short succession. Pyrotec (talk) 16:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much for picking this up! CorporateM (Talk) 17:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)