![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
To any editors of this page: I intend to make changes to it in the near future, including large incorporation of content from the research of Roddy Boyd, which can be found here: http://www.sirf-online.org/2012/11/the-infernal-machine-from-powder-to-dust/. This particular report has been pointed out as an example of good journalism, so the credentials shouldn't be in question in case anyone wanted to complain about that (for example [1]). OK, that's all, just a courtesy note. In the process of editing I will also be reviewing the current article for advertising and so forth. TheSoundAndTheFury ( talk) 23:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
I've been doing some copyediting in the "History" section - to try to make it more concise, clear and readable. Having already done some work on the wording and structure (although not the content) of this section's first paragraph, yesterday, today I made the following changes:
I split the second paragraph into two paragraphs, since it deals with two separate subjects. In the first of these new paragraphs, I reorganised the material (again, without substantially altering the content) relating to Blyth's takeover of the company, to make it more concise and readable.
The second of these new paragraphs deals with the company's near bankruptcy, and Blair's efforts to make it profitable again. I made quite a few changes to grammar and sentence structure, again in the interests of conciseness and readability. I also made mention of the fact that Blair won an award for his role in reversing the company's fortunes, since it seemed notable, and both of the sources cited mention it. I also made mention of the size of company's debt at the time of its near-bankruptcy, and corrected the figure given in "...its turnaround to $34 million income in 2010" to the fifteen million a month that was actually mentioned in the cited source. I also repaired a bare URL in one of the citations in this section.
I'll be taking a closer look at the rest of the article over the next two or three days - I think it could probably do with some more copyediting. Phrenology ( talk) 00:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Today I made the following changes:
More general tidying up of grammar, sentence structure and the format of citations throughout this section.
In the material relating to the class action lawsuit, there were potential problems with the neutrality of some of the language (eg. "slapped"), and also with the overly-legalistic style of the writing. I therefore rewrote the paragraph so that it gives the same information in a more neutral, concise and easy-to-read form. I also introduced a brief summary of the company's response to the allegations, again in the interests of neutrality.
I removed the sentence hinting that ViSalus might be an illegal pyramid scheme - given that the sources cited provided no firm evidence that ViSalus is either a pyramid scheme or that it has broken the law, this seemed to come too close to the 'gossip and scandal mongering' that the 'What Wikipedia Is Not' guidelines prohibit.
I'll continue working through the article tomorrow. Phrenology ( talk) 06:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Today I finished working through the article, and made the following changes to the "Products" section and lead:
General copyediting - grammar, sentence structure, etc.
In "Products", I removed "Visalus products are available only in North America," since the source cited did not appear to back up the assertion, and the lead and infobox both state that the company's products are available in both the US and Canada. I also removed the sentence dealing with "anecdotal evidence" of "health claims" - for the reasons I outlined in my reply to Leef, above.
In the lead, I removed "ViSalus' 90 day Body by Vi Challenge is a program in which participants can win prizes for purchasing products and losing weight." - this seemed like excessive detail for the lead. I moved the sources cited in this sentence to the part of the "Products" section dealing with the Body by Vi Challenge. I also removed the Roddy Boyd source from the lead - again, for the reasons I outlined in my reply to Leef, above. Phrenology ( talk) 21:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
There was an RS article a few months ago that doesn't appear to have made it into the article, and there's some pretty good nuggets in here. I'm still quite swamped IRL and WP is most certainly on the back burner at this point in my life. Feel free to incorporate the pertinent information into the article where appropriate. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/27/will-blyth-investors-suffer-powder-burn.html
I've been pleased with some of the recent discussions and debates for neutrality, and thought this article would worth including, albeit in a neutral manner.
Leef5 TALK | CONTRIBS 01:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
There's some changes that I'd like to propose for this page - I attempted to make some of them, but my edits were reverted, so I thought I'd start a discussion on the subject here.
1. I think the term "spin off" is the sort of technical language that the average reader wouldn't understand, and that it should be replaced with "issued public shares".
2. I think the terms "folded" and "went under" aren't the kind of language that encyclopaedias usually use - "ceased trading" seems to me to be a more appropriate way of putting it.
3. Is withdrawing an IPO really a controversy? My understanding was that this was a fairly common occurence, and not scandalous. Wouldn't the material about the withdrawn IPO be more appropriately placed in the "History" section?
4. In the "History" section, the following seems to me like it might potentially be excessive detail, because it relates to a company that is not the subject of this page: "The Free Network, a multilevel marketing company that went under because it provided obsolete services in long distance calling, dial-up Internet access, and paging" - should this part of the sentence be shortened, or perhaps removed?
What do you think? I look forward to hearing your views. Thank you. Phrenology ( talk) 09:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
I tried to add some more information to the material relating to the Body by Vi Challenge, in the "Products" section - details of celebrities who have participated in the challenge. My edit was reverted, and I don't quite understand why, so I thought I'd try to explain more about what I was trying to achieve. I attempted to add this information because I've noticed that it's fairly common for wikipedia articles for dieting products to mention any celebrity testimonials and endorsements. For example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenny_Craig,_Inc.#Endorsements
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutrisystem#Effectiveness
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slim_Fast#Celebrity_endorsements
I can see why some of the sources I included might be considered unreliable - but weren't some of the sources much less questionable? For example ABC News and the Miami Herald? Would the sentence I tried to add perhaps be more acceptable if I removed some of the sources? If so, which ones?
I look forward to hearing your thoughts. Thanks. Phrenology ( talk) 13:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to propose some changes to the paragraph dealing with the class action lawsuit. I feel that there are problems with the phrases "also alleged" and "and issued", which make it sound like the alleged Securities Exchange Act violation was in addition to, rather than being identical with the overstating of results. I think that this should be made clearer, by changing "also alleged" to just "alleged", and "and issued" to "by issuing". I would also like to suggest some more general copyediting changes. I propose that the paragraph should be edited so that it reads as follows:
Does anybody have any thoughts on this proposed change? Phrenology ( talk) 06:12, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
To any editors of this page: I intend to make changes to it in the near future, including large incorporation of content from the research of Roddy Boyd, which can be found here: http://www.sirf-online.org/2012/11/the-infernal-machine-from-powder-to-dust/. This particular report has been pointed out as an example of good journalism, so the credentials shouldn't be in question in case anyone wanted to complain about that (for example [1]). OK, that's all, just a courtesy note. In the process of editing I will also be reviewing the current article for advertising and so forth. TheSoundAndTheFury ( talk) 23:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
I've been doing some copyediting in the "History" section - to try to make it more concise, clear and readable. Having already done some work on the wording and structure (although not the content) of this section's first paragraph, yesterday, today I made the following changes:
I split the second paragraph into two paragraphs, since it deals with two separate subjects. In the first of these new paragraphs, I reorganised the material (again, without substantially altering the content) relating to Blyth's takeover of the company, to make it more concise and readable.
The second of these new paragraphs deals with the company's near bankruptcy, and Blair's efforts to make it profitable again. I made quite a few changes to grammar and sentence structure, again in the interests of conciseness and readability. I also made mention of the fact that Blair won an award for his role in reversing the company's fortunes, since it seemed notable, and both of the sources cited mention it. I also made mention of the size of company's debt at the time of its near-bankruptcy, and corrected the figure given in "...its turnaround to $34 million income in 2010" to the fifteen million a month that was actually mentioned in the cited source. I also repaired a bare URL in one of the citations in this section.
I'll be taking a closer look at the rest of the article over the next two or three days - I think it could probably do with some more copyediting. Phrenology ( talk) 00:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Today I made the following changes:
More general tidying up of grammar, sentence structure and the format of citations throughout this section.
In the material relating to the class action lawsuit, there were potential problems with the neutrality of some of the language (eg. "slapped"), and also with the overly-legalistic style of the writing. I therefore rewrote the paragraph so that it gives the same information in a more neutral, concise and easy-to-read form. I also introduced a brief summary of the company's response to the allegations, again in the interests of neutrality.
I removed the sentence hinting that ViSalus might be an illegal pyramid scheme - given that the sources cited provided no firm evidence that ViSalus is either a pyramid scheme or that it has broken the law, this seemed to come too close to the 'gossip and scandal mongering' that the 'What Wikipedia Is Not' guidelines prohibit.
I'll continue working through the article tomorrow. Phrenology ( talk) 06:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Today I finished working through the article, and made the following changes to the "Products" section and lead:
General copyediting - grammar, sentence structure, etc.
In "Products", I removed "Visalus products are available only in North America," since the source cited did not appear to back up the assertion, and the lead and infobox both state that the company's products are available in both the US and Canada. I also removed the sentence dealing with "anecdotal evidence" of "health claims" - for the reasons I outlined in my reply to Leef, above.
In the lead, I removed "ViSalus' 90 day Body by Vi Challenge is a program in which participants can win prizes for purchasing products and losing weight." - this seemed like excessive detail for the lead. I moved the sources cited in this sentence to the part of the "Products" section dealing with the Body by Vi Challenge. I also removed the Roddy Boyd source from the lead - again, for the reasons I outlined in my reply to Leef, above. Phrenology ( talk) 21:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
There was an RS article a few months ago that doesn't appear to have made it into the article, and there's some pretty good nuggets in here. I'm still quite swamped IRL and WP is most certainly on the back burner at this point in my life. Feel free to incorporate the pertinent information into the article where appropriate. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/27/will-blyth-investors-suffer-powder-burn.html
I've been pleased with some of the recent discussions and debates for neutrality, and thought this article would worth including, albeit in a neutral manner.
Leef5 TALK | CONTRIBS 01:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
There's some changes that I'd like to propose for this page - I attempted to make some of them, but my edits were reverted, so I thought I'd start a discussion on the subject here.
1. I think the term "spin off" is the sort of technical language that the average reader wouldn't understand, and that it should be replaced with "issued public shares".
2. I think the terms "folded" and "went under" aren't the kind of language that encyclopaedias usually use - "ceased trading" seems to me to be a more appropriate way of putting it.
3. Is withdrawing an IPO really a controversy? My understanding was that this was a fairly common occurence, and not scandalous. Wouldn't the material about the withdrawn IPO be more appropriately placed in the "History" section?
4. In the "History" section, the following seems to me like it might potentially be excessive detail, because it relates to a company that is not the subject of this page: "The Free Network, a multilevel marketing company that went under because it provided obsolete services in long distance calling, dial-up Internet access, and paging" - should this part of the sentence be shortened, or perhaps removed?
What do you think? I look forward to hearing your views. Thank you. Phrenology ( talk) 09:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
I tried to add some more information to the material relating to the Body by Vi Challenge, in the "Products" section - details of celebrities who have participated in the challenge. My edit was reverted, and I don't quite understand why, so I thought I'd try to explain more about what I was trying to achieve. I attempted to add this information because I've noticed that it's fairly common for wikipedia articles for dieting products to mention any celebrity testimonials and endorsements. For example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenny_Craig,_Inc.#Endorsements
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutrisystem#Effectiveness
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slim_Fast#Celebrity_endorsements
I can see why some of the sources I included might be considered unreliable - but weren't some of the sources much less questionable? For example ABC News and the Miami Herald? Would the sentence I tried to add perhaps be more acceptable if I removed some of the sources? If so, which ones?
I look forward to hearing your thoughts. Thanks. Phrenology ( talk) 13:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to propose some changes to the paragraph dealing with the class action lawsuit. I feel that there are problems with the phrases "also alleged" and "and issued", which make it sound like the alleged Securities Exchange Act violation was in addition to, rather than being identical with the overstating of results. I think that this should be made clearer, by changing "also alleged" to just "alleged", and "and issued" to "by issuing". I would also like to suggest some more general copyediting changes. I propose that the paragraph should be edited so that it reads as follows:
Does anybody have any thoughts on this proposed change? Phrenology ( talk) 06:12, 28 March 2013 (UTC)