![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() Archives ( Index) |
This page is archived by
ClueBot III.
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 May 2019 and 2 July 2019. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Tailz88.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 07:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
After reading the entirety of this article, I can't help but feel like a large piece of the complete picture is missing. Specifically, objections and criticism.
The current content is great quality imo - I've never encountered a marketing/economics article that read so clearly and easily, so kudos to those involved.
That being said, it also read a bit like a chapter from the Handbook for Human Exploitation, or at least a bit anti-consumer, and I was surprised to see no mention of this. I can't tell if the article is neutral, or a zealous endorsement lacking the expected criticism. I don't want to fabricate controversy / original research / moral considerations, but curious what others say 2607:FEA8:FEF0:80F7:99BA:B074:76A6:1F94 ( talk) 19:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() Archives ( Index) |
This page is archived by
ClueBot III.
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 May 2019 and 2 July 2019. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Tailz88.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 07:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
After reading the entirety of this article, I can't help but feel like a large piece of the complete picture is missing. Specifically, objections and criticism.
The current content is great quality imo - I've never encountered a marketing/economics article that read so clearly and easily, so kudos to those involved.
That being said, it also read a bit like a chapter from the Handbook for Human Exploitation, or at least a bit anti-consumer, and I was surprised to see no mention of this. I can't tell if the article is neutral, or a zealous endorsement lacking the expected criticism. I don't want to fabricate controversy / original research / moral considerations, but curious what others say 2607:FEA8:FEF0:80F7:99BA:B074:76A6:1F94 ( talk) 19:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC)