This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Marketing & Advertising, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Marketing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
An edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.
Requesting a second opinion regarding the "Reads like a News Release" tag added here by @DGG: (see discussion here). This is a GA article and the reviewer @Edge3: is one of our better reviewers. This looks like drive-by tagging to me.
The remaining arguments from DGG for the tag are:
That it is promotional to refer to the article-subject (Guthy-Renker) by name. This is just silly - I shared several examples on DGG's Talk page of FA articles that refer to the company by name 100+ times.
That including celebrity endorsements of products is promotional. While typically this is the case, in this case the article is about a marketing company whose primary activity/claim to notability is using celebrity endorsements and infomercials to market other peoples' products.
If I saw any remote way I could accommodate this feedback without botching the article I would, however how would the article look without referring to the article-subject by name or without mentioning the company's primary activity/claim to notability (promoting products through celebrity endorsements).
I never said not to refer to the company by name--I said not to refer to the company by name as many times as it is being done in the article. Thefirm, the company, it, or they are all good substitutes. Using the name once per section is usually enough, unless more is needed for clarity.
Celebrity endorsements are intended as promotional. What else are they used for? That's their very purposes, their usefulness, their role. The question is to what extent we should repeat them here. I think if the fact of the endorsement is itself a matter of outside commentary--by which I mean widespread outside commentary outside the context of mere mentions or Press releases, then it can be mentioned, especially if it is in some way related to the notability of the subject . In this article "the company any also manages the "In an Instant" line of skin care products endorsed by Heidi Klum and the "Malibu Pilates" exercise equipment endorsed by Susan Lucci. " the endorsement by Klum might be relevant , since she is best known as a model. It would belong in an article on the product line if the product line merited an article. It might conceivably belong in an article on her. It does not belong in an article on the company that makes the product line. Lucci is irrelevant in all respects--she is an actress, not a sports figure, and I think it relevant neither to an article on the product nor to her bio,and certainly not tho the company. In the case of " Guthy-Renker’s Proactiv line is endorsed by celebrities, including Jessica Simpson and Kelly Clarkson. " They are both singers, and there's enough relationship of makeup to stage performers that it might belong in an article on the product, but not to an article on the company. Book Shields ditto. Such endorsements are just the publicity technique of getting a famous face for an advertisement. An example of what I think would be relevant is endorsement of a brand of running hoes by famous runners. DGG ( talk ) 03:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I do not believe there is community consensus that articles should be tagged if they refer to the article-subject by name more than once per section. On the contrary, under that logic, almost all our FA company pages would need to be tagged and de-listed. The same would go with almost all of our articles about any subject; our article on walking refers to the article-subject (not vaguer words like "the exercise") more than 150 times. This is not promotional, it's only natural.
I do see a couple more products have been added since I wrote the article (at least 1 with a primary source that should be trimmed) - you could debate the nuances of exactly how many products should be mentioned (I have no interest in such a petty debate), but the celebrity endorsements are the only information of significance about these products in this case; For example, Britney spears is mentioned 18 times at Britney Spears products, because the only significant thing about these products is that she produces them. Guthy-Renker is not an inventor or manufacturer - the products themselves are not relevant to them - their primary product is celebrity endorsements and producing ads that use them. CorporateM (Talk) 04:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
As a previously uninvolved editor who just removed the tag from the article, I don't really see any news release-like text in here. Certainly, the mention of celebrities is not too newspaper-like. In this context, an endorsement is just stating a fact about who supported what, but does not necessarily slant the points of view regarding the subject. If, on the other hand, there is a list of 20 products and the name of every single celebrity that endorsed these products is listed in the article, the article can most certainly be tagged. Only three or four very notable products need be mentioned as having endorsements. Epic Genius (talk) ± 03:07, 29 May 2015 (UTC)