Talk:Proactiv/GA1
GA Review
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: LT910001 (talk · contribs) 10:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello, this article's been nominated to GA status for over a month, so I think it deserves some attention. I haven't previously created or edited this article, although I have been involved in a discussion on Wikimed here. In order to review this article, I'd like to ask the nominator, CorporateM, whether this article is about intended to be about a cosmetic product, a pharmaceutical product, or a company. LT90001 (talk) 10:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- The product. We already have an article on Guthy-Renker and while Proactiv is sometimes referred to as a separate entity (a partnership between GR and the two dermatologists), I'm not sure to what extent it is legally. The product (or at least its infomercials) are probably more famous than GR itself anyway.
- BTW - I just noticed someone has added an entire section on Proactiv+ that is over-detailed and promotional. Since this is a counter-COI edit, I may clean that up. CorporateM (Talk) 12:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'll wait until you're finished editing to continue the review. In the mean time, can I point out that this article is tagged with infobox company, and is also under the companies taskforce, and has a subsection called 'products' (which probably should include 'Proactive+' as a subsection). It may be worthwhile treating this article as about the corporation Proactive, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Guthy-Renker, have a section on products, and alter the article accordingly. At that time it might be good to post on the notice board of WP:Companies and get a more appropriate reviewer. LT90001 (talk) 08:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Conclusion
This article has not been edited in a month; nominator has not edited it in two months and given the lack of response or action on this review I'm marking it as failed. I would encourage re-nomination after the article has been edited for clarity, the separation between the company and product has been more clearly indicated, the overall marketing tone decreased, and more reliable secondary sources are used as evidence where required. Kind Regards, LT90001 (talk) 23:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)