The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: CorporateM ( talk · contribs) 15:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
This being my first time conducting a GA review rather than submitting one, I'd like to take a look at the article working from the top-down, then check it more closely against the GA criteria. CorporateM ( Talk) 15:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Regarding this edit: Clearly, this company sponsors a lot of events, as evidenced by the many sources proving this. Yes, many of these sources are primary (official event websites), but does that really warrant the removal of this section in its entirety? I am not going to fight hard for its inclusion, but it does seem like some aspect of the article is missing if we are removing an entire branch of this company's activity. -- Another Believer ( Talk) 16:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
The current version of the article relies extremely heavily on press releases, the company website and other low-quality sources as citations. While primary sources are not forbidden, and our expectations for sourcing are a little lower on a marginally notable company, the article should rely primarily on reliable, independent sources. I've started looking through the sources below. CorporateM ( Talk) 23:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
1. Does not mention GU Energy Labs
2. Is an interview and therefore should be used with caution
3. Does not mention GU Energy Labs
4. Is a good source for its use, albeit a brief mention.
5. Is a press release
6. Is a press release
7. Looks like a good source
8. A brief mention, but acceptable for its use
9. Is a blurb, but acceptable for its use
10. The company website
11. The company website
12. Although it is a brief mention,
NPR provides a strong secondary source for a product description "which makes gels that blend carbohydrates, amino acids, electrolytes and caffeine." Something similar to that should work ok here.
13. More content from this source should be included: "the reaction was mixed-to-positive – some who took the Tri-Berry flavour felt that they had a more prolonged spell of energy, whilst those who took the Mandarin Orange didn’t feel an affect...I certainly felt as if my focus was higher. Interestingly, this followed me taking the only flavour without caffeine. And whilst I didn’t feel a huge spurt of energy"
14. Looks like an acceptable source, but also has more content that could be added to the article: "If you are familiar with GU products, you may agree with me when I describe the texture as almost frosting-like. I found that the flavor really did taste like a light peppermint frosting, yet was not too overpowering (nagging question from my run: Is it a good thing or a bad thing to be thinking about cupcakes when running?). I find some of the flavors of GU hit-or-miss at times, but this flavor was definitely a bulls-eye for me. Enough so that I may loading up a couple for the Foot Traffic Flat Marathon in July, seasonal tastes be darned. "
16. A brief mention but fine for its use
17. The company website
18. The company website
19. The company website
20. The company website
21. The company website
22. The company website
23. The company website
Out of the first 23 citations, only about 8-10 of them warrant inclusion and many of the sources that do warrant inclusion do not have the main premise of the article (product reviews) included. CorporateM ( Talk) 23:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: CorporateM ( talk · contribs) 15:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
This being my first time conducting a GA review rather than submitting one, I'd like to take a look at the article working from the top-down, then check it more closely against the GA criteria. CorporateM ( Talk) 15:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Regarding this edit: Clearly, this company sponsors a lot of events, as evidenced by the many sources proving this. Yes, many of these sources are primary (official event websites), but does that really warrant the removal of this section in its entirety? I am not going to fight hard for its inclusion, but it does seem like some aspect of the article is missing if we are removing an entire branch of this company's activity. -- Another Believer ( Talk) 16:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
The current version of the article relies extremely heavily on press releases, the company website and other low-quality sources as citations. While primary sources are not forbidden, and our expectations for sourcing are a little lower on a marginally notable company, the article should rely primarily on reliable, independent sources. I've started looking through the sources below. CorporateM ( Talk) 23:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
1. Does not mention GU Energy Labs
2. Is an interview and therefore should be used with caution
3. Does not mention GU Energy Labs
4. Is a good source for its use, albeit a brief mention.
5. Is a press release
6. Is a press release
7. Looks like a good source
8. A brief mention, but acceptable for its use
9. Is a blurb, but acceptable for its use
10. The company website
11. The company website
12. Although it is a brief mention,
NPR provides a strong secondary source for a product description "which makes gels that blend carbohydrates, amino acids, electrolytes and caffeine." Something similar to that should work ok here.
13. More content from this source should be included: "the reaction was mixed-to-positive – some who took the Tri-Berry flavour felt that they had a more prolonged spell of energy, whilst those who took the Mandarin Orange didn’t feel an affect...I certainly felt as if my focus was higher. Interestingly, this followed me taking the only flavour without caffeine. And whilst I didn’t feel a huge spurt of energy"
14. Looks like an acceptable source, but also has more content that could be added to the article: "If you are familiar with GU products, you may agree with me when I describe the texture as almost frosting-like. I found that the flavor really did taste like a light peppermint frosting, yet was not too overpowering (nagging question from my run: Is it a good thing or a bad thing to be thinking about cupcakes when running?). I find some of the flavors of GU hit-or-miss at times, but this flavor was definitely a bulls-eye for me. Enough so that I may loading up a couple for the Foot Traffic Flat Marathon in July, seasonal tastes be darned. "
16. A brief mention but fine for its use
17. The company website
18. The company website
19. The company website
20. The company website
21. The company website
22. The company website
23. The company website
Out of the first 23 citations, only about 8-10 of them warrant inclusion and many of the sources that do warrant inclusion do not have the main premise of the article (product reviews) included. CorporateM ( Talk) 23:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)