Talk:Ziploc/Archives/2012

Instructor comments

good WSJ research. citation belongs in references at bottom

Products section has no citations and sounds promotional.

Uses sounds promotional and the whole section is imported from one source. Nevertheless, this information can be included if it is paraphrased and included in a framework you provide, mentioning the real simple source

good information in Advertising

How are they made is not an adequate heading. The point of this information is that Ziploc is introducing a sustainability feature as part of their marketing and production strategy.

Competition information is good. Figure out how to get the citations into reference list.

You've done a good job so far coming up with hard to find information.

Student Comments

I've cited the products section and removed key promotional words like fresh and easy-to-use.

I changed uses to functions and added some sources. I used more sources than just those I added but a couple of the sources I used would not be allowed to be cited by wikipedia. Also all of the items are paraphrased but I thought that leaving them in list for makes it easy to read and more reader friendly.

I changed the How are They Made? section to Manufacturing since the section talks about the manufacturing of various Ziploc products

Rudolph2007 (talk) 03:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup Talk

Good start to a common product. I do have some comments for this article though. The citations need to be the same throughout. There are numbered hyperlinks interspersed with the 'ref' tags. I recommend changing all the links to the ref tag. There are too many lists and it interferes with the flow of the article. Since you are already providing a direct link to the product page, might I suggest a simple reference to it instead of listing them all. Or you could create another Wikipedia page just for the list of products. Once again, a good compilation of information. It just needs a little polishing. --Inomyabcs (talk) 01:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

more instructor comments

I agree with Inomyabcs' suggestions, especially about formatting references.

The information in the two lists can be reformatted as prose, with more framing material from you, indicating the spread of applications from pencil bags--I remember those--to food preservers to all kinds of other things. I believe i mentioned to you that you could mention the sources of those suggestion being the trendy lifestyle organization, real simple.

Manufacturing--varies among not between. proofread this section

Controversy--proofread second sentence. Good summary of the controversy.

Competition: dont use an epigraph; incorporate the idea of the quote and reference its source. Why is "archival" in here?

Good combination of research methods.

B+ Rudolph2007 (talk) 20:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

last instructor comments

someone has deleted the list of products and uses, reducing your article to an inadequate length. The content of that list is relevant information, but I agree with earlier comments indicating that it reads too much like a company catalog. Please reformat that section as expository prose and reintroduce it for your final grade. Rudolph2007 (talk) 18:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Controversy section

Can a Controversy section really exist when it's only sourced by one unknown-full-of-ads source? Most reputable sites that have a background in anything don't rely on sites full of advertising.

I don't work for Ziplock, have nothing to do with the company but it does appear as if this Controversy is not sourced well enough to meet Wikipedia standards.Woods01 (talk) 22:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. That source seems hardly credible at all. The only leg their argument has to stand on is a vague "there could be trace amounts of other chemicals formed or leached from the ziploc bag". "Could be"...Any published studies to back that up? "Other chemicals"...Yeah, like what? So now we're allowing mindless speculation to be provided as evidence on Wikipedia? It's no wonder "Ziploc has not commented on this aspect of the argument". First of all, "Ziploc" is just a brand which S.C. Johnson owns. Get that straight, at least. Secondly, why would S.C. Johnson comment on unsubstantiated rumors? I could just as easily say that Ziploc bags autonomously drive up to your house and kick your dog, but that doesn't make it true. PacoBell (talk) 22:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree - - - I have deleted the section Rlsheehan (talk) 02:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

topic: mechanism vs products

Shouldn't there be an article here with more focus on the mechanism by which these (generic and proprietary) plastic sleeves seal and open (with and without slider anvils)?

I certainly don't see the benefit from this encyclopedia retaining an entire section listing the slightly different sizes of all the plastic bags that happen to be marketed under one brand. Consider for example this line of blatant marketing spewed by the article:

Recently, Ziploc has made an evolved line of sandwich and storage bags

Perhaps what we really need is a hatnote at the top of the article, directing readers to a generic page on plastic bag seals. Then this page won't have much more to say other than that it is a brand name for some sealable plastic bags and rigid plastic containers (and we can probably merge it as a subsection to the article for its parent company). Cesiumfrog (talk) 01:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)