![]() | Nestlé Purina PetCare has been listed as one of the
Social sciences and society good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: December 26, 2014. ( Reviewed version). |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Nestlé Purina PetCare article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | 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.
|
![]() Archives ( Index) |
This page is archived by
ClueBot III.
|
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
I am affiliated with the article-subject and have a disclosed COI. I noticed the current article, under History/Legal issues has two redundant sentences referring to the same lawsuit:
In 2015, a class-action lawsuit was filed against Purina, claiming that the dog food manufactured by the company was hazardous for pets. [1]
Later in that section the page states:
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. [2] [3]
They both seem to be referring to the same lawsuit. I suggest keeping the second one and trimming the first sentence, as the second reference to the lawsuit has more detail and better sources. CorporateM ( Talk) 12:35, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
References
The current article-text states:
In 2015, a class-action lawsuit was filed against Purina alleging that the company's Beneful brand of dog food contained toxins produced by mold found in grains — grain being a major ingredient in Beneful. [35] [36]
It seems to flow logically that the article should include the fact that the case was dismissed. Can we add something like the following?
The lawsuit was later changed to a claim of false advertising rather than harm to pets, but eventually all claims against Nestlé Purina were dismissed by the court. [1]
CorporateM (
Talk)
19:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Edit request implemented
References
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
![]() | Nestlé Purina PetCare has been listed as one of the
Social sciences and society good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: December 26, 2014. ( Reviewed version). |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Nestlé Purina PetCare article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated GA-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.
|
![]() Archives ( Index) |
This page is archived by
ClueBot III.
|
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
I am affiliated with the article-subject and have a disclosed COI. I noticed the current article, under History/Legal issues has two redundant sentences referring to the same lawsuit:
In 2015, a class-action lawsuit was filed against Purina, claiming that the dog food manufactured by the company was hazardous for pets. [1]
Later in that section the page states:
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. [2] [3]
They both seem to be referring to the same lawsuit. I suggest keeping the second one and trimming the first sentence, as the second reference to the lawsuit has more detail and better sources. CorporateM ( Talk) 12:35, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
References
The current article-text states:
In 2015, a class-action lawsuit was filed against Purina alleging that the company's Beneful brand of dog food contained toxins produced by mold found in grains — grain being a major ingredient in Beneful. [35] [36]
It seems to flow logically that the article should include the fact that the case was dismissed. Can we add something like the following?
The lawsuit was later changed to a claim of false advertising rather than harm to pets, but eventually all claims against Nestlé Purina were dismissed by the court. [1]
CorporateM (
Talk)
19:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Edit request implemented
References
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)