![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
The second source does not relate to the popularity of dog food and is not relevant to the sentence citing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.228.73.76 ( talk) 19:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
There are some strong and unverified claims regarding Beneful's ingredients. --20:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
ingredients on the bag speak for itself whats to verify —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.228.80 ( talk) 04:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
The comments on artificial ingredients are not written in a NPOV tone. Even if the facts are as stated, the statement comes across as biased. Off2Explore ( talk) 15:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes I think the comments here are far from unbiased - the fact that the only detailed comment about the product seems to have been added to berate it is very telling. Whats more, dogs are far more sensitive to beef and what than anything else (based on the 1000s of customers I sell dog food to - although not this brand) so simply linking to the ingredients as a 'reference' does not support the claims made or the actual incidence of allergies (which is rare reaction but used in a generalised way as causing ANY reaction) or protein sensitivity... I don't wish to contribute anything else to the article as I hate Nestle - but for the sale of quality someone should balance those highly biased comments with some reality. :-)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
I have a COI/affiliation/financial connection with Nestle Purina Petcare and its Beneful brand. I have prepared a draft article at user:CorporateM/Beneful that I would like to propose as a replacement for the current page. I was hoping a disinterested editor would review the draft and consider whether it is a suitable replacement. The current article contains both promotion (trademark symbols, an indiscriminate list of products, description of information available on the website, etc.) and excess criticisms (a dedicated "Accusations" section, which states the FDA "has yet to take matters into their own hands") In actuality the FDA conducted lab tests and found no contaminants in Beneful products. (The lab results are here, which are linked to in This news article. This news source says "The FDA is aware of the complaints, but hasn't found a contaminant, so the dog food remains on the shelf.") The draft also incorporates various general improvements: more sourced content, a free image, etc. CorporateM ( Talk) 15:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
In the Lede the current article states "generating $141.7 million in revenues" however the source says that was revenue for "four weeks ending September 29, 2012" as oppose to a year. I cannot find any recent sources with an annual revenue number, so I wanted to request we replace it with "more than $1.5 billion in revenue" using WP:CALC (141*12=$1.7 billion), following user:Crisco_1492's suggestion here. CorporateM ( Talk) 17:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
![]() | An impartial editor has reviewed the proposed edit(s) and asked the editor with a conflict of interest to go ahead and make the suggested changes. |
This May @ Jrleaguedoe: moved content about allegations of contaminants in the food to a new "Controversy" section. This seems to run contrary to WP:CRITICISM, which discourages the creation of dedicated sections for controversial events. I would suggest moving it back to History or merging it with the new Products section. CorporateM ( Talk) 06:13, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. The reviewer would like to request the editor with a COI attempt to discuss with editors engaged in the subject-area first. |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Beneful. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
The second source does not relate to the popularity of dog food and is not relevant to the sentence citing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.228.73.76 ( talk) 19:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
There are some strong and unverified claims regarding Beneful's ingredients. --20:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
ingredients on the bag speak for itself whats to verify —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.228.80 ( talk) 04:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
The comments on artificial ingredients are not written in a NPOV tone. Even if the facts are as stated, the statement comes across as biased. Off2Explore ( talk) 15:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes I think the comments here are far from unbiased - the fact that the only detailed comment about the product seems to have been added to berate it is very telling. Whats more, dogs are far more sensitive to beef and what than anything else (based on the 1000s of customers I sell dog food to - although not this brand) so simply linking to the ingredients as a 'reference' does not support the claims made or the actual incidence of allergies (which is rare reaction but used in a generalised way as causing ANY reaction) or protein sensitivity... I don't wish to contribute anything else to the article as I hate Nestle - but for the sale of quality someone should balance those highly biased comments with some reality. :-)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
I have a COI/affiliation/financial connection with Nestle Purina Petcare and its Beneful brand. I have prepared a draft article at user:CorporateM/Beneful that I would like to propose as a replacement for the current page. I was hoping a disinterested editor would review the draft and consider whether it is a suitable replacement. The current article contains both promotion (trademark symbols, an indiscriminate list of products, description of information available on the website, etc.) and excess criticisms (a dedicated "Accusations" section, which states the FDA "has yet to take matters into their own hands") In actuality the FDA conducted lab tests and found no contaminants in Beneful products. (The lab results are here, which are linked to in This news article. This news source says "The FDA is aware of the complaints, but hasn't found a contaminant, so the dog food remains on the shelf.") The draft also incorporates various general improvements: more sourced content, a free image, etc. CorporateM ( Talk) 15:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
In the Lede the current article states "generating $141.7 million in revenues" however the source says that was revenue for "four weeks ending September 29, 2012" as oppose to a year. I cannot find any recent sources with an annual revenue number, so I wanted to request we replace it with "more than $1.5 billion in revenue" using WP:CALC (141*12=$1.7 billion), following user:Crisco_1492's suggestion here. CorporateM ( Talk) 17:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
![]() | An impartial editor has reviewed the proposed edit(s) and asked the editor with a conflict of interest to go ahead and make the suggested changes. |
This May @ Jrleaguedoe: moved content about allegations of contaminants in the food to a new "Controversy" section. This seems to run contrary to WP:CRITICISM, which discourages the creation of dedicated sections for controversial events. I would suggest moving it back to History or merging it with the new Products section. CorporateM ( Talk) 06:13, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. The reviewer would like to request the editor with a COI attempt to discuss with editors engaged in the subject-area first. |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Beneful. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)