Talk:Marketing of electronic cigarettes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Reliability of specific sources[edit]

Truth in Advertising (organization) (TinA) a reliable source?[edit]

Hello, User:124.106.142.116. You removed a section sourced from Truth in Advertising (organization) with the comment "unreliable sources used. A blatant anti-vaping website is not a reliable and neutral source". Could you please state what requirements at WP:RS the source does not meet? My understanding is that TINA is an investigative journalism organization opposing untrue ads, not an anti-vaping website. Saying negative things about some aspects of vaping, or even saying only negative things about vaping, would not be enough to disqualify it as a source; sources are not required to be nuetral: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Biased or opinionated sources. HLHJ (talk) 15:33, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Truth in Advertising is an unreliable source. It is a watchdog group and not a secondary source. I already explains this on another page. I flagged the source and other sources on another page that has similar problems. QuackGuru (talk) 15:38, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi, QuackGuru. Would being a watchdog group make it an unreliable source? WP:RS do not have to be secondary sources; journalistic sources are widely accepted. One might also consider the group experts in advertising. One could even say that journalism about advertisments, in an article about marketing, is a secondary source. We can RFC this if you like. I'm sorry, I hadn't seen your other comment yet. HLHJ (talk) 15:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
It is a consumer advocacy group with an agenda. We would not allow other groups that promote nicotine. It looks like the readers are trying to cleanup the article. But you are undoing the cleanup. QuackGuru (talk) 16:11, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Sources are not required to be neutral: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Biased or opinionated sources. And the agenda is, according to it, "to empower consumers to protect themselves and one another against false advertising and deceptive marketing". This does not seem to me to be a problem. It doesn't cause a conflict of interest with reporting on vaping marketing.
Reliable sources that promote nicotine are not disallowed in principle, but finding reliable sources, especially reliable medical sources, that think nicotine is worthy of promotion is hard, and could easily lead to WP:UNDUE concerns. HLHJ (talk) 16:23, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree with unreliable sources used. A blatant anti-vaping website is not a reliable and neutral source. See WP:BIASED: "When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking." QuackGuru (talk) 16:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Is it your position that Truth in Advertising (organization) does not have either editorial control or a reputation for fact-checking, QuackGuru?
Reputation-wise, they seem to have a good reputation with reliable news organisations, as the latter ask them for comments and run stories about their work (see here). Admittedly, that's a list of TINA-mentioning news coverage from TINA's own website, and so biassed, but do you have any sources/reasons for a lack of editorial control or fact-checking? HLHJ (talk) 17:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Reputation-wise, they are known as a watchdog advocacy group. I don't have information on their editorial control or fact-checking. They are not-neutral and there are better sources available. QuackGuru (talk) 00:41, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Sources are not required to be neutral: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Biased or opinionated sources. They seem to have a good reputation for fact-checking, as they get cited in everything from Reuters to lawsuits (WP:USEBYOTHERS). They describe themselves as having a journalist join their "editorial staff", which seems to me to mean editorial control. As WP:NEWSORG says, "Some news organizations do not publish their editorial policies". I can e-mail them and ask. HLHJ (talk) 02:05, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
They are a watchdog advocacy group and they are actively running campaigns against advertisements. This type of consumer advocacy group is usually unreliable. I'd rather not cite consumer watchdog groups who are aggressively running campaigns against advertisers. QuackGuru (talk) 22:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
They actually have a section on ads they like; they seem to quite selectively oppose "false advertising and deceptive marketing". They have been involved in bringing many court cases and regulatory actions just in this field; they must check their facts fairly well to do that in the US and not get sued into the ground. There is no way anyone could do that sort of work for years on end without meeting WP:SOURCE's criterion: "The best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments." They have a staff attorney, who also has a journalism MS; she is one of at least three lawyers on the staff. They have a number of staff who might be called "specialists" in sub-areas of TINA's field, and the organization members, collectively, seem to me to be "recognized experts" (WP:NEWSORG), recognized by unquestionably reliable journalistic sources (WP:USEBYOTHERS). WP:NEWSORG also says: "Signals that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy are the publication of corrections and disclosures of conflicts of interest". TINA do publish corrections, and their website says: "Corrections: TINA.org takes its responsibility to maintain the integrity and accuracy of the content of its website very seriously. If you think you’ve spotted an error, please use the form below and enter “Correction” in the subject line." (my italics). I could not find a COI declaration. I did not get a response to an e-mail asking for links to a COI disclosure and a formal editorial policy (if a professional journalist is reading this, please ask TINA about this next time you interview them). However, WP:NEWSORG also says: "Some news organizations do not publish their editorial policies.", and COI disclosures are clearly not mandatory for RS status, so I don't think that this is enough to disqualify the source.
I have not come across any source calling TINA a "watchdog advocacy group", but the description would fit the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids or Amnesty International or Médecins sans Frontières (all of which run aggressive campaigns) just as well. I am not aware of any policy that advocacy groups cannot be RS, and some are very widely cited indeed on Wikipedia. Biassed sources, as you quoted, just have to meet "normal requirements for reliable sources". And a bias against misleading ads does not seem very problematic. Certainly it is not an "apparent conflict of interest" in the sense of WP:NOTRELIABLE. I have given you my reasons for thinking that TINA have editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking, and comply with RS policy. If you still disagree, could you please give your reasons for disagreeing? HLHJ (talk) 04:48, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Stanford Research Into the Impact of Tobacco Advertising research group (SRITA) a reliable source?[edit]

I think it is. They are widely cited in the media and I've seen no indications that they don't have a good academic reputation for reliability. QuackGuru, I know you disagree, and I invite you to explain why. HLHJ (talk) 18:07, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

You wrote "The website stanford.edu is a primary source". I'd say that the ads are the primary source, and SRITA's discussion of them is secondary. What do you think? HLHJ (talk) 18:51, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

They are conducting research and it is a University website. There are better sources available on the topic. QuackGuru (talk) 22:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

This source comments on the e-cigarette marketing claims but there are WP:MEDRS compliant sources that make very similar claims. That's the reason we should not use that source. QuackGuru (talk) 20:59, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Judging by the timing of your post, I'm assuming that you read Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 246#Online resource published by the Stanford Research Into the Impact of Tobacco Advertising (SRITA) research group, which found it was WP:RS but not WP:MEDRS (which I entirely agree with). If there are MEDRS sources that would support the same statements as SRITA, I'm happy to cite them too. I don't think statements about the existence, prevalence, and purposes of e-cigarette marketing claims are biomedical information needing MEDRS (even if statements about their truth are). I can't see that the existence of other sources on similar material means that we should not cite a reliable source; indeed, as MEDRS are often less reliable for non-medical information, citing both might be appropriate, where possible. HLHJ (talk) 06:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids a reliable source?[edit]

User:124.106.142.116, in this edit you state that the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids is not a reliable source. Can you explain why you came to this conclusion, please? HLHJ (talk) 20:52, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

User:124.106.142.116, if you are now convinced that it is a reliable source, could you please re-instate it? HLHJ (talk) 21:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

The source cites references. It might be reliable. It did not appear to verify the current wording. QuackGuru (talk) 03:15, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Do you think that it is reliable?
You're right, the current sources do not mention chewing tobacco. Apparently flavoured chewing tobacco is still legal in the US, too. I'm happy with striking the words "chewing tobacco and".
legal in US: Hoffman, Allison C.; Salgado, Raydel Valdes; Dresler, Carolyn; Faller, Rachel Williams; Bartlett, Christopher (2016-11-01). "Flavour preferences in youth versus adults: a review". Tobacco Control. 25 (Suppl 2): –32-ii39. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2016-053192. ISSN 1468-3318 0964-4563, 1468-3318 Check |issn= value (help). PMID 27633764. Retrieved 2018-06-03.
HLHJ (talk) 03:55, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
It is reliable, depending on the content. They have been discussed in many news articles related to this topic. They also cite references for many of the articles they wrote. QuackGuru (talk) 19:27, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Wired.co.uk a reliable medical source?[edit]

I don't think Wired.co.uk meets WP:MEDRS. It's popular press, not a medical source. HLHJ (talk) 01:03, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

User:124.106.142.116, you made this edit, which cites Wired. Could you comment, please? HLHJ (talk) 03:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

It's a publication known for its science related content, so yes I consider it to be reliable. Besides, the source is used to support the inclusion of the report from the BMJ which is also sourced, so unless you dispute the accuracy of that report, the source is sufficient.124.106.142.116 (talk) 06:52, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Background: I originally wrote that the statement "e-cigarettes help smokers quit" was supported by weak evidence, and cited the Cochrane review. The statement is now presented as a "scientific fact", with the phrase "This claim has been supported by a report in the British Medical Journal" and citations to Cochrane, TINA (which just supports the statement that the claim is a marketing claim, being non-MEDRS for sure), Wired, and the BMJ article.
User:124.106.142.116, my interpretation of the WP:MEDRS policy is that it would not consider Wired to be reliable for biomedical information. I don't think that we need, in principle, to cite Wired to support the inclusion of a BMJ article; it might have value as a lay overview of the same material as a medical article.
I am not questioning the accuracy of the BMJ report, but whether it is MEDRS. Individual scientific studies are often idiosyncrasy-laden and variable (see Law of large numbers) and there are a lot of them, so it is very likely that some will reach contradictory conclusions. MEDRS therefore favours recent medical reviews for this sort of information, to ensure that all the available evidence is considered. It would be unconventional to evince the efficacy of a medical treatment purely with a population survey, which gives correlation, not causation, as the authors note when saying "was associated with" in their conclusions. A reading of the Cochrane review cited right next to it, which I realise you may not have access to the fulltext of, and a reading of Cochrane (organisation)'s quality criteria for evidence, would give a background here (although you should be aware that some consider Cochrane's evidentiary standards too strict; Cochrane's guidelines for their review authors, and their guidelines for assessing the studies they review). Assessing medical evidence is a fascinating area of study. You could also ask Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine for advice on selecting good medical sources, although I guarantee they'll start with "Read WP:MEDRS", so I'd start by telling them that you have.
I believe my selection of sources for this article does exhibit POV bias. I didn't, for instance, cite the British "95%" review. I welcome the addition of MEDRS sources that run counter to my bias. HLHJ (talk) 13:12, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

The content is off-topic. It is not about marketing. Too many sources per claim is also causing confusion. QuackGuru (talk) 14:24, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Vaping Post a reliable medical source?[edit]

I don't think the Vaping Post meets WP:MEDRS. This article is not a medical review; nor does it even report on one. HLHJ (talk) 01:03, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

the source is used to support the inclusion of claims made by Dr. Michael Siegel on air sampling performed by the CDPH, so unless you dispute the accuracy of that quote, the source is sufficient. Besides, while the article doesn't report on a medical review, it does report on scientific analysis of air quality and scientific conclusions based on that analysis, so it's all good. 124.106.142.116 (talk) 06:58, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
My comments above apply here, too. WP:MEDRS applies to sources for statements about the accuracy of the common advertising claim "e-cigarettes are harmless to others breathing the same air".
There are other concerns about using just the Vaping Post report. For instance, unlike a scientific report, they do not give detailed methodology, or even the detection thresholds for any of their measurements. The post ends "The CDPH has still not released any official data pertaining to this study – last updated on 04/07/17", so we may not be able to get hold of this data. While publication bias is an issue, Wikipedia citations can't fix it. Some techniques used to detect it in systematic reviews can help, though.
Also, while I do not accuse the Vaping Post of such behaviour, I have seen journalists get quotes from scientists egregiously wrong, mostly though lack of context. As in, a scientist says that X has trait x, and a journalist records notes and publishes a story about Z, quoting the scientist as saying "This has trait x, which is x-like". And then the scientist's friends call and say "Umm, they misquoted you on the news. I know you couldn't be so stupid as to think that Z has trait x. I mean, you've written several papers on the non x-likeness of Z". And the scientist says "Oh no! X is not Z! I didn't say that! How regrettable!", but possibly in a less family-friendly way, and they send an e-mail, and if they are lucky they might get a retraction from the careless journalist (who was probably on a tight deadline and might not have formally studied science since grade school, because, say, they are actually a sports reporter pinch-hitting as a science journalist due to cutbacks, and didn't quite manage to patch their ignorance sufficiently in a frantic half-hour skimming Wikipedia). I don't exaggerate much.
Finally, as I mention above, small studies vary. Simply by cherrypicking studies out of the variability in results we'd expect from the law of large numbers, we can produce almost any impression we like. I suspect that the Vaping Post might have a sampling bias towards studies with results that can be cited in favour of vaping. This is why we prefer to use systematic reviews on Wikipedia, and why people writing systematic reviews give persnickety amounts of detail on exactly how they found and selected the studies they include. HLHJ (talk) 13:57, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

The source was not used for marketing claims. QuackGuru (talk) 14:26, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Unclear and vague content[edit]

See "The marketing of electronic cigarettes is legal in some jurisdictions,[1] and spending is increasing rapidly.[2][3]" What are the "some jurisdictions" where they are legal to market? The part "spending is increasing rapidly" is vague and both sources verify different claims. This is becoming a problem with the additional citations after each sentence because both sources do not verify the same claim. QuackGuru (talk) 21:15, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

"Globalize" tag[edit]

QG has reverted my addition of a "globalize" tag to the article, with the edit summary "(No specfic proposal on the talk page.)" There is of course no need for a "specific proposal" - as nearly always, the tag means that the article almost entirely ignores the rest of the world outside the US. But if he wants some specific proposals:

  • The article should deal with some other countries
  • The article should recognize how unusual the US is in the dominance of cigalikes owned by Big Baccy.

In general, the article is very poor, hamstrung by using medical writers out of their depth in marketing, as well as by the difficulty of getting accurate figures for the market. Johnbod (talk) 23:11, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

No specific proposal has been presented because no sources were presented. QuackGuru (talk) 04:23, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
?? Programming fault? This statement has no meaning. You need a source fror the existence of the rest of the world outside the US? Yes, I suppose I can believe it. The tag goes back; please don't remove it without a proper discussion. Johnbod (talk) 14:07, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Recent changes October 2018[edit]

Failed verification content[edit]

It appears failed verification was added.[1] Where does the source mention e-cigarettes? QuackGuru (talk) 04:23, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Tag removed[edit]

The tag was removed without fixing the problem. The content is outdated and fails verification. QuackGuru (talk) 14:09, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Content Fork[edit]

This edit added copied content from the electronic cigarette article. Most of the content on this page is copied content. There is not enough content in the electronic cigarette article to delete it and move it to this page. QuackGuru (talk) 14:09, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Undone tag removals. I understand the issues over content forking, but this is the main page for the subject. If you think that there is not enough content to delete on main page, then I understand, but surely the main page on the marketing of electronic cigarettes should include all the points mentioned at Electronic cigarette#Marketing and more, since it is the main page for the subject? Why should points be made on that page and not here? am I missing something? --Bangalamania (talk) 15:25, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
There is not enough content for a separate page. This page does not have a solid lede. The majority of content on this page is copied content. That's not a reason to create a new page. Either move it to draft space or redirect it is best for now. The Electronic cigarette#Marketing should have at least 4 solid paragraphs on the subject. This page does not have one solid paragraph in the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 15:44, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
"There is not enough content for a separate page." – in that case, shouldn't all of this article be moved there, and this article deleted? Otherwise, this should be the main page for the topic, surely? I have not created any new pages at all. I agree that there are problems with this page, but it is the main article on the topic of e-cigarette marketing and it doesn't make sense for it to have less information than that section within the Electronic cigarette article. --Bangalamania (talk) 17:06, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
You claim "it is the main article on the topic of e-cigarette marketing". I disagree. It is not an article. It is a content fork. Content forks are redirected. All the content would not be added to the electronic cigarette article. See "The marketing of electronic cigarettes is legal in some jurisdictions,[1] and spending is increasing rapidly.[2][3][clarification needed] The content failed verification and makes no sense. I can copy content from the electronic cigarette article and create a new page on Smoking cessation and electronic cigarettes but that would also be a content fork. In order to create a new page there should be significant new content for a new page or if the content in the electronic cigarette article is way too long a new page can be created. QuackGuru (talk) 17:31, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough. I have no objection to this article becoming a redirect until more enough info is included on the main article to meet WP:SPINOFF. – Bangalamania (talk) 02:56, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Based on past behavior in this topic area a redirect could result in endless debate on the talk page. The way forward would be to AFD the content fork. See WP:AFDHOWTO. QuackGuru (talk) 13:27, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
I assume you're referring to me, QuackGuru, and honestly no offense. I haven't been around here much lately; now that the RfC has run its course and I'm less involved in other commitments, I'll try to clean up the article and make sure it has substantive content. Earlier versions, including the one that passed a new-article review, contained more content. Some of this was removed by inexperienced editors who are not yet familiar with some aspects of policy. The resolution to the dispute about the reliability of SRITA, which has a lot of information about marketing practices, should help add substantive content. HLHJ (talk) 00:10, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Unsourced and non-neutral content[edit]

See "E-cigarette companies have been accused of using similar to pre-regulation tobacco advertising." Please do not add unsourced or uncited content. QuackGuru (talk) 15:48, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Elaborating on Flavored Tobacco Marketing Strategies[edit]

I would like to propose adding more information to the following sentence:

"According to a 2014 review, e-cigarettes are aggressively promoted in the US, mostly via the internet, as a healthy alternative to smoking.[5] "Big tobacco" markets e-cigarettes to young people,[6] with industry strategies including cartoon characters and candy flavors to sell e-cigarettes."

As banning flavored tobacco is the target of recent legislation, elaborating on this topic is critical. I propose that we add a section elaborating on:

1. The strategies used to attract young people 2. The impact on public health JenniferKaiser2020 (talk) 01:49, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good, 2601:645:4101:365C:537:A9DA:693C:239F. If you look through the article history, you will find such a section (here), which might be a good starting point. If you have problems with sources to cite or anything, please leave me a message on my talk page (click the "talk" link in my signature here: HLHJ (talk) 02:38, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Please read the article scope. The content must be directly related to e-cigarette marketing. General content about banning flavored tobacco is generally off-topic. QuackGuru (talk) 02:01, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Sources[edit]

  • HLHJ (talk) 02:38, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Not relevant and failed verification[edit]

This edit removed the FV tag and added another source. The original source still does not verify the entire claim and the new source does not mention is it about marketing. Do both sources verify "other cities expected to follow their lead"? Regulation and marketing are different. The content is also off-topic unless it is established it is related to marketing. Please read here about the scope of this article is supposed to be. QuackGuru (talk) 14:15, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Pharmacy Student Peer Reviews[edit]

Group 29 Peer Review:

Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? If not, specify… - It appears as though most of the edits this group did was deleted, however the work that is still published does reflect a neutral point of view.

Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available? If not, specify…

Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style? If not, specify…

Is there any evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation? If yes, specify. Laurencline (talk) 20:45, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

-It seems like many edits made by my classmates were are removed. In regards to the current state of the article, the formatting of quotes should be fixed. Proper capitalization should be used. Wikipedia's manual of style likes to use stated instead of said. Periods should be placed after quotation mark. The article should begin with an introduction with a concise summary of the article. I do not believe that the current intro is a good summary of the article's contents. Quotation of "harm reduction" may be inappropriate because it may imply doubt. Quotations around Big Tobacco are not consistent with Wikipedia's manual of style. A lot of the quotations seem inappropriate and seems overused. Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Quotations for details. ThomasLeung1 (talk) 01:26, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Edit review: The article is not about regulation of flavored tobacco or use of tobacco products.
  • Edit review: The article is not about general safety of e-cigarettes unless the source directly linked the safety content directly to the marketing.
  • Edit review: The part "To combat marketing aimed at minors" and "with other cities expected to follow their lead" appears to fail verification.
  • Edit review: One sentence was uncited and another sentence contained the unsupported weasel word many. The amount of flavored e-cigarettes appears to be off-topic.
  • Please read the article scope. The content must be directly related to e-cigarette marketing according to the source presented. QuackGuru (talk) 22:38, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Not a pharmacy student peer-reviewer here, but responding to the comment above, which is also not by a pharmacy student peer-reviewer. QuackGuru, I do not think that your review is entirely fair.
  • Flavouring e-cigarettes is a means of marketing them, as reliable sources clearly state. While some of the content you removed was not about e-cigs and was off-topic, some of the content you removed was about flavoured e-cigarettes, not more traditional forms of flavoured tobacco, and thus, in my view, on-topic.
  • Your second and last points seem to me to directly contradict the conclusion of an an RfC on this page. It said "We should prefer sources which directly refer to the marketing claims, though sources that address the same health claims as a marketing claim can be used sparingly if no direct critique is available and an alternative source is needed to accord due weight."
  • Deleting a sentence by a new editor because it contains the word "many" and the source did not seems like overkill. You could have just removed the word "many". I have done this, and rephrased the content to make the link to the topic clearer.
Please let me know if you have problems with these edits. HLHJ (talk) 06:14, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

- It looks like most of the edits done by this group are removed. The original points included and the rest of the work are verifiable with cited secondary sources. All the cited sources were freely available and appropriate. Jetuaimer (talk) 16:32, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Group 15 Peer Review:
1. Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? If not, specify… — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephaniesin (talkcontribs) 16:45, 8 November 2018 (UTC)


I believe that the pharmacy students' draft submission reflects a neutral point of view since the statements are facts of events that have occurred. In regards to the actual article, there are certain phrases that could have a more neutral tone. For example, in these two phrases, "E-cigarette companies have been accused of…" and "…but this assertion is misleading," I believe the terms "accused" and "misleading" can have a negative connotation, respectively. Lastly, it seems like many of the edits were deleted due to claims regarding the relevance and validation of the edits, however, I believe that some of the edits are relevant and could be included in the wikipedia page. One possible suggestion for resolving the relevance claim would be to directly link the comment to marketing of electronic cigarettes in the same sentence. Overall, I believe this group has great ideas for potential edits and all of their draft edits sound neutral to me! -Stephanie Sin (Stephaniesin (talk) 20:47, 8 November 2018 (UTC))
2. Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available? If not, specify… — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephaniesin (talkcontribs) 16:45, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
This group chose to edit a start class article that has many areas for improvements. The edits they made were cited to secondary sources that are freely available, and easy to access to the open public. Some of the secondary sources the group cited included the FDA website as well as the FTC website. While the sources were valid, the edits were deleted by another user because the user deemed the information as not appropriate for a page about marketing. Maus0792 (talk) 17:08, 8 November 2018 (UTC)(Maki Usui)
3. Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style? If not, specify… — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephaniesin (talkcontribs) 16:45, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
It appears the edits the group made were deleted. The original article's format is generally consistent with Wikipedia's manual of style, which encourages a simplistic writing style for ease of understanding. However, there are various instances where improvement can be made. The article would benefit with an introductory summary of the topic. In addition, there are a number of instances where quotations have been inappropriately used. Quotations around "pharmaceuticalization" and "Big Tobacco" are not appropriate. Looking further in the sandbox it seems the group's previously proposed edits also fit the criteria for Wikipedia's manual of style. The proposed edits were grammatically correct and organized to appropriately fit the original article. (Vinh Ho) -Butter121 (talk) 18:12, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
4. Is there any evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation? If yes, specify… — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephaniesin (talkcontribs) 16:45, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
The article is well written and supported by appropriate references wherever needed to support a particular fact and/or specific information. There is no plagiarism or copyright violation based on my reading. In general, the information presentation follows a logical pattern and would be a resource for someone who wants to understand how the marketing of electronic cigarettes is being done. Notwithstanding paraphrasing of information, there is no clear sign of plagiarism within the information presented in the article. There are few grammatical errors and writing syntax that may need a careful editing.-Praveen Shukla (praveenniper05)

Looking at the edits that were removed, there was no evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation. I compared the written statements with the references and they were well summarized and explained in their own words. The statements made were also cited. Sallytpham (talk) 17:11, 8 November 2018 (UTC)