Talk:Mannatech/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: CorporateM (talk · contribs) 04:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've started reviewing the article, but it may take a little while for me to finish a first look. CorporateM (Talk) 04:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done with a "first look". A lot of the items below are nit-picky. The important items I would identify is that the article relies too heavily on primary sources and quotes and needs a better article-structure. I would suggest something like "Corporate history", "Products" and a sub-section of Products called "Reception". Even if this company's corporate history is riddled with lawsuits, we should still use a neutral title. Primary sources are acceptable for infobox data, to supplement secondary sources in minor nuanced ways and other applications, but we shouldn't be relying primarily on primary sources to cover lawsuits and other controversial issues. CorporateM (Talk) 04:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Can we break this up into more than 1 paragraph.
Suggest trimming the list of countries it has operations in per WP:ORGLISTS as an indiscriminate list
I prefer avoiding redundancy with the infobox regarding number of employees and other details, but different editors handle it differently
Also suggest trimming per WP:ORGAWARDS the ranks and lists that are cited to primary sources.
Can we get the logo image on a transparent background so it doesn't have a white box around it?

Thank you for the helpful notes. I'll see what I can do and reply back. Prhartcom (talk) 05:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image: Done. Prhartcom (talk) 15:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Reference #2 needs to be removed because it is not relevant to the statement made. Recommend link to corporate website.JERZEA (talk) 19:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Products

Suggest a comma before "which"
The SEC filing is a primary source and not usable, especially for medical claims made by the company itself. More content should probably be mined from the Wall Street Journal article on the debate

I'll see what I can do and reply back. Prhartcom (talk) 05:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific evaluation

"~~Prominent~~" promotion
what is meant about lacking enzymes?

It means the body lacks the enzymes needed to digest the company's product, so the product ends up not being absorbed properly by the body and becomes waste. Should the reader need clarification, the footnote includes an additional sentence. Therefore it seems clear enough to me but I am happy to provide some clarification if you say so. Prhartcom (talk) 16:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I somewhat expected the article to be critical, but I think this section could be trimmed quite a bit. For example "It included criticisms and comments from glycobiologists, including Ajit Varki, Raymond Dwek, Gerald Hart, James Paulson, Hudson Freeze, and Ronald Schnaar" there's not really any benefit in listing each of them individually.

I have removed the names of the non-notable scientists. I also removed the repeated first names of two scientists and removed the somewhat peacock adjective "prominent" (or I tried to, but an edit conflict had already removed it). Prhartcom (talk) 16:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a primary source and probably shouldn't be used.

I'll see what I can do and reply back. Prhartcom (talk) 05:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Company-funded studies

Nothing published by or funded by the company can be used. If their sponsored research is featured in secondary sources, than it can be used, but I'm thinking that is unlikely to be the case here. It is very unusual for us to devote so much space to the company's own claims about itself. CorporateM (Talk) 04:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually glad to hear that. What we have here is a compromise of many discussions over several years that resulted in one area for the independent studies and one area for the company studies (that my discussion opponents wanted). You would not believe the things I have seen in this article (take a look at the archived talk page). I'll see what I can do and reply back. Prhartcom (talk) 05:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One thing to keep in mind on any company page, especially a critical one, is that you will encounter editors with a non-disclosed financial connection to the company that will push for a non-neutral POV, such as the sales affiliates. I would encourage you to always be patient, civil and assume good faith as you've done here, but also be firm. That being said, being firm means you have to really be confident you are in the right. That essay covers most of the common POV Pushing circumstances you'll experience. CorporateM (Talk) 15:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't I know it. I hope I have been all those things over the years. I thought compromise was the answer at the time, as I didn't know about the "no primary sources" card to play on them (which goes for both the non-disclosed financial editors and the reasonable editors with valid scientific studies who counter them, doesn't it, as I have found out.) Have you had to deal with something similar? It takes a lot of energy, doesn't it. Prhartcom (talk) 16:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Public scrutiny

This sounds like a WP:CRITICISM issue. We try to avoid dedicated sections for criticisms and controversies. Much of this should probably be under a neutral title like "Corporate history". The contents of such a section can still be negative if that is representative of the sources, but we shouldn't name a section after "criticisms" in most cases. CorporateM (Talk) 04:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence is a bit awkward
" jury trial was demanded" huh? A jury trial was demanded? By who and how?
"Securities Exchange Act" Wikilink if possible. A brief/concise description would also be helpful
"This caused a misleading price inflation of the company's stock." The plaintiff alleged?
"The plaintiffs consisted of" suggest moving this higher up
"In response ~~to this criticism~~"
Also suggest trimming or removing the long quote
"A press release stated" This section seems to rely heavily on press releases; this is an inappropriate use of primary sources.
"His performance" I removed this, as WP:BLP requires immediate removal of primary sources for criticisms of a living person

I honestly thought that the name I gave to this section and its subsections was doing exactly that, avoiding negative-sounding, critical connotations. What is a better sounding name, then? I'll see what I can do and reply back. Prhartcom (talk) 05:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MannaRelief Ministries

Short sections are discouraged by our manual of style. Also, this is a poor use of a primary source. Secondary sources should be the primary basis of the article. CorporateM (Talk) 04:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I remember when someone (who worked at the ministry, I believe) succeeded for about a week with an entire article on this subject before it was deleted and someone else reduced it to this single sentence. I'll see what I can do and reply back. Prhartcom (talk) 05:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other

"National Review which" (needs a comma)

Done. Prhartcom (talk) 05:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Caster

This entire section can be removed or moved to a separate article if he is notable enough. See here and WP:ORGVANITY. We do not use a company page to give a backgrounder or profile on one of its executives.

Okay. It is good to know about that essay. He's probably notable enough due to the number of news articles that quote and mention him, cited here. I once created a redirect named Sam Caster and pointed it to this section; maybe I can cut this section from this article and copy it to the redirect, would you suggest? Prhartcom (talk) 05:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I checked out the sources and did some searches on my own. I don't think he is notable-enough for a separate article. He seems to be covered exclusively regarding his contributions and legal troubles at this company, whereas a proper BLP page should include date of birth, education, personal life, and each job title held. His prior ventures are covered only to give context around his work here. Therefore, we should follow suit. As an example, a Corporate history section might start out with "Mannatech was founded in 1994 by Sam Caster, an entrepreneur that previously founded an insulation company and a ____ company that experienced similar legal troubles as Mannatech for mis-representing products."[1] and later it may say "The <government entity> sued both Mannatech and its CEO, Sam Caster directly... Sam resigned from the CEO position and was replaced by" His role is part of the company's history. CorporateM (Talk) 15:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there was that one musical thing he did when younger that I dug up one year when I was trying to flesh out his background, but it was just deleted. I suppose I would have to really put some research time in at the library microfiche to try to find out more about his past if we were to create that article. As for this article, yes, we can build a Corporate history section; let me look into it. I will need to spend some time looking through the WSJ, Bloomberg, and similar. I haven't had time to check yet; are archive searches at notable business journals free? Can you recommend some tips for me? Thanks very much. Prhartcom (talk) 16:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Highbeam is a good resource and they have an agreement with Wikipedia that allows a certain number of editors to get free access to their archives: Wikipedia:HighBeam. I find that they are mostly useful for local publications though. You can search Google News archives here, but their database is very incomplete as they have been phasing out the product. The best resource I have access to by far is the local university library. They have an online tool to search news articles, books, journals, etc. I'll usually start my search for just the first year the company was founded, then cull through the first few pages of results for each year. CorporateM (Talk) 17:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response

CorporateM, I can think of no one more appropriate to review this article; what an honor to work with you again. Thank-you for taking this on. I am happy to allow you to complete your review at your own pace. I will get started soon and ping you when I have questions. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 04:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. It is good practice for an editor to conduct as many reviews as they do nominations, so I'm always happy to slightly lessen my negative ratio. We do not get many noms for org pages for me to review. CorporateM (Talk) 05:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you; I just completed two reviews to try to pay it forward and I really should do another one soon. As you can tell, I'm afraid my expertise is not in articles about corporations. For example, I hadn't even considered that a court filing is "bad". I thought that when my research turned up actual court filings, there could be no better reliable source for identifying the truth. Please note that I have edited this article off and on for at least five years along with many other editors, and finally decided to try for GA. I have prevented various attempts by others to hijack the article and use it as a mouthpiece, but I am not personally affiliated with this company in any way. I believe I'll have some questions and responses for you soon. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 05:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a common misconception about Wikipedia. Because we are a tertiary source, we rely on secondary sources to read and interpret primary ones, whereas if we were historians, press, etc. we would prefer primary sources. Lawsuits for example, are often a rollercoaster and we have no way of verifying if a specific court document was really the last word, or just a trivial step before the next appeals. Also, any given company could have their page flooded with trivial lawsuits by mining public court records (same goes with awards). We need secondary sources to establish a lawsuit's significance and to interpret those court records for us. Anyways, if you ever have questions about a company page, I'm your guy. I don't know much about other types of pages though... CorporateM (Talk) 05:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am running into edit conflicts with User:Rhode Island Red, who I appreciate their help. I trust this user who, like me, has been watching this article for years. CorporateM, please double-check their edits to ensure it falls in line with your GA Review. Prhartcom (talk) 16:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Prhartcom. A GA reviewer is not suppose to get involved in editing disputes. On the contrary, if the article is not "stable" that is grounds for failing a GA review until any disputes are resolved. I will say that it is very difficult to work in any contentious topic on Wikipedia and a company such as this might fall under those parameters. As discussed, the article should not include primary sources like press releases as the sole source for contentious material, like lawsuits, however the best way to further the discussion is to see if secondary sources can be found to replace the primary ones. If not, you'll have to talk it out with Rhode Island. If that is unsuccessful, and you still want to bring it up to GA, you would need to get additional outside input to establish a consensus using noticeboards or other processes. CorporateM (Talk) 17:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you are ready to fail the GA any second now, and if you do, I will understand, that is your prerogative. The situation isn't as bad as you think, though. This article is stable; no one touches it for long stretches of time, thankfully; it's nothing like it once was. I believe User:Rhode Island Red simply noticed the attention suddenly paid to the article and inappropriately jumped in; as I said, I trust this editor. GA reviews are allowed comments from other users if that editor would like to comment on this page instead of editing. I of course realize you are right about the primary sources; I see now that's bad, but can you at least answer my question above about any tips you may have about researching the archives of business journals? If by chance they are easy to research online and if you are willing to be patient while I research them, then perhaps there is still a chance. Thanks very much for your expertise. Prhartcom (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was just going to wait it out for now. It's not a big deal if it's failed though, as you can always renominate when it's ready. I responded above. The best option is probable to get access to library resources that have good online databases of newspaper archives. Microfilm is not practical. CorporateM (Talk) 17:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have just researched the how to use the resources of a university that is a short drive from me (thank-you for that idea) and I will be using their resources imminently. I should wait on the HighBeam (thanks for that) as Nikki may have reason to deny my request for access until I can tell her I have exhausted this first idea. I will reply before the weekend is out with an update. Prhartcom (talk) 17:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first new I've heard of an editing conflict. Was this referring to an attempt by another editor to edit the page while I was revising it? If so, that's no big deal is it? The article popped back onto my radar because of the GA nomination, and when I reviewed it I found it lacking. I made several edits to areas that were the most glaringly below GA standards. Perhaps the editor can clarify their comment that I "inappropriately jumped in". A GA nomination doesn't impose a moratorium on editing an article. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rhode Island Red, if you read above you'll see me state twice that I trust your edits. I believe you and I are reasonable editors who have watched this article for years, preventing the editors who come along occasionally with a POV to push. I'm grateful that I am not alone. I'm sure you received my "Thanks" that I sent you for your fixes yesterday. I appreciate your help. Unfortunately, if you read above, you'll see that your edits at this time are causing the GA reviewer to think that this article is unstable. It isn't; no POVs have come along lately and you haven't made any improvements to the article in a long time. But stability is a requirement for GA so I can see why the reviewer would express concern after seeing your sudden activity now, right in the middle of my GA review. Oh well, it's okay. There is the other worse problem this article has; did you read above? All of the primary sources (legal filings and medical publishings) need to be completely thrown out and replaced with secondary sources (i.e. WSJ and Bloomberg articles). If you would like to help me do that, that would be great. Prhartcom (talk) 22:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A little clarification; the changes I'm suggesting are quite drastic, so the article should be unstable at this time. I was just expressinh how GA reviewers are not suppose to get involved. CorporateM (Talk) 23:21, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the vote of trust. What I find odd is the fuss about edit conflicts and the suggestions that it was somehow inappropriate for me to have edited the article. Like I said before, the article hasn't been on my radar for a while but bubbled up to the top of my watchlist when it was nominated for GA. I gave it a read, saw some major problems, and began fixing some of them. It does no good to rush an article to a GA review if it has outstanding issues, and stability is a secondary concern to quality. So how about we just worry about getting it right. Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: I twice received the Edit Conflict page while trying to make GAR-requested fixes to the page; hence the reason I mentioned above that I was getting edit conflicts. No one is rushing this to GA. Prhartcom (talk) 04:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Best to just move on and improve the page. A lot of editors type out comments quickly and may say something a little off. An Edit-Conflict just means two people were trying to edit the page at the same time and the software doesn't allow it. We should be focusing on content. CorporateM (Talk) 13:30, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will track down the required secondary sources from my local public and university libraries for this article eventually, but I have just been in discussions and made plans to improve another article to GA as a priority. Therefore I cannot commit to this article in the next few days. Thank-you, CorporateM for your wise advice and learning experience; I certainly hope to work with you again, e.g. when I nominate this article again someday. Cheers to all. Prhartcom (talk) 16:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]