Talk:Nestlé Purina PetCare/Archives/2015

Image

File:Nestle Purina's solar farm in Colorado.jpg

During the Good Article review, User:DocumentError passed the article, but suggested it could use more images if available. I mentioned I would try to obtain some from Purina and just received a Declaration of Consent for this beauty [mentioned above]. Suggest adding it at the top of "Recent history" where their solar farm in Colorado is discussed. CorporateM (Talk) 21:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

CorporateM, I have made the edit as you requested. It's a fine addition to the article. Prhartcom (talk) 05:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Workplace

FYI - someone brought this to my attention offline. Glassdoor's 7th annual best places to work ranking placed Nestle Purina Petcare in the third place spot. Per my own advice at WP:ORGAWARDS, I do not believe such rankings/awards belong in the article, unless there is a secondary source, independent from the award organizers, that covers the company winning the award (or in other exceptions: articles should always contain a market-share ranking/value where available and some rankings like the Fortune 500 are unquestionably notable). This is especially the case here, since the rankings are based on crowd-sourced reviews. However, user:FreeRangeFrog recently went the other way on a similar issue on another article and my views are not necessarily representative of any clear and overwhelming community consensus. So I'll just share it here in case anyone has an opinion. CorporateM (Talk) 16:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Found a secondary source from Bloomberg DNA:

• "Listening, Responding to Employee Concerns Boosts Nestlé Purina to Top of Glassdoor List". Bloomberg DNA. December 19, 2014. Retrieved January 15, 2015.

I haven't read the whole thing yet, but it appears to cover Purina's workplace culture in-depth. Will take a closer look. CorporateM (Talk) 16:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Nestlé Purina PetCare/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: DocumentError (talk · contribs) 08:45, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Round 1

Hi - comments follow. DOCUMENT★ERROR 08:12, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

1a. (prose)

• "Purina One" is misspelled "Purine One" in the first sentence of "Products and Services."

 Done CorporateM (Talk) 12:49, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

1b. (MoS)

• As per MOS:LIST the list of significant brands needs to have some logical organization. It appears (correct me if I'm wrong) to be randomly ordered. Could it be reorganized alphabetically?

 Done CorporateM (Talk) 12:52, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

• As per MOS:JARGON SWOT should be explained or written out, however, it would be really cumbersome to do so here. I recommend either a wikilink to SWOT analysis or simply delete "According to a SWOT analysis by MarketLine ..." and start the sentence after that (keeping the inline ref to the MarketLine report).

 Done I added a wiki-link. CorporateM (Talk) 12:54, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

• In the second paragraph of early history it says "eleven percent" but should be "11 percent." In the last paragraph of the operations section it says "five percent" but should be "5 percent." WP expresses percentages with numerals which, IIRC, is different than AP style which uses letters up to 10 and numerals, thereafter.

 Done CorporateM (Talk) 13:15, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

2a. (ref layout)

• As per WP:ILC it is a general best practice, but not a fast rule, to place inline citations at the end of sentences instead of in the middle of a sentence. But it is a very good practice to do this.

2b. (RS)

• excellent use of RS - no press releases and any references to company website are for self-evident material

2c. (OR)

• nope, no OR here

3a. (broadness)

• considering how recently this subsidiary was formed, there is a very holistic amount of information provided in the article

3b. (focus)

• yes, focused

4. (neutral)

• the use of the word "voluntary" prior to each of the recall instances was going to be an issue, but, on further examination of the references, they used the word "voluntary" as well so that's all fine - good job!
• engaging in a smear campaign could be rewritten as engaging in what it characterized as a "smear campaign" - I realize you were trying to be neutral but, in this instance, I think your admirable efforts led the pendulum to swing too far the opposite direction

 Done CorporateM (Talk) 13:29, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

• All the text in the "Marketing and Advertising" section should be seamlessly incorporated into the history section. There's no policy about this I could find, however, on a cursory review of other GA company articles I couldn't find any examples of a standalone M&A section. It's also confusing as parts of the current history section touch on marketing elements.

We often do have an advertising, or sponsorship-type section actually for major consumer brands. Check out KFC#Advertising or Burger_King#Advertising CorporateM (Talk) 14:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

5. (stable)

• Good - article wasn't touched for 4 months until the rewrite. Prior to that it had only been incrementally edited.

6a. (free pics)

• seems okay but see 6b

6b. (relevant pics)

• The GA criteria says "illustrated, if possible, by images." There are currently no pics at all outside of the infobox. This makes it a very text-heavy article and cumbersome to read. Even just two pics in the body of the article would be great. Are there a couple product shots that could be thrown in?

I'll see if I can get some images from Nestle, but it may take a bit due to the holidays. CorporateM (Talk) 13:43, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Round 2

PASS! DOCUMENT★ERROR 21:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Recent edits

@GypsySlide: recently made some edits here regarding a new class action lawsuit about allegations of contaminants in Beneful. However, the text only included the plaintiff's point-of-view and is probably better covered on the Beneful page with a sentence or two summary here.

I'd like to suggest the lawsuit content be integrated into the Beneful page and be written in a manner that summarizes multiple viewpoints, rather than just that of consumers. I've put together a proposed draft at User:CorporateM/Purina. A more detailed annotated comparison of the two versions is available here. CorporateM (Talk) 01:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• Federal Court is a dab page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, what sentence would you use here? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492: I corrected the DAB issue. For the sentence on this page, how about something like: "In 2015 a class-action lawsuit was filed against Purina regarding allegations that its Beneful brand of dog food contained toxic ingredients that Purina said were FDA-approved." CorporateM (Talk) 16:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• Hows about "In 2015, a class-action lawsuit was filed against Purina. It alleged that the company's Beneful brand of dog food contained toxic ingredients. Purina said these ingredients were FDA-approved." Or something similar. Reduce the verbiage. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492: Looks fine to me. I did some very very minor copyediting to the draft sentence above. I'm happy to add citations to it in article-space as a non-controversial edit. CorporateM (Talk) 16:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• Alright, done. Please feel free to add the reference for the PetCare article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:16, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done CorporateM (Talk) 16:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Purina has a 500 puppy/dog and 700 kitten/cat animal lab

According to the USDA/APHIS web site, in 20014 Purina operated a 500 dog and 700 cay animal lab. Purina will not publicly talk about the type of experiments that are conducted on animals in its labs.

Headquarters

The St. Louis facility is only one of the three headquarters of Nestle Purina. Its a global company with two other headquarters:

"Nestlé Purina has three headquarters locations around the world. With 20 manufacturing plants, 12 sales offices, and numerous sales territories in the United States, Nestlé Purina offers locations in both rural and urban areas, which appeal to a variety of lifestyle preferences."

https://www.nestlepurinacareers.com/why-purina/our-locations/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.147.135.66 (talk) 13:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)