Talk:Paula Begoun

This article was nominated for deletion on 1 April 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Chicago

	Chicago portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Women in Business Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles about women in business on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject Women in BusinessTemplate:WikiProject Women in BusinessWomen in Business articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Bias?

In my opinion, this entry has a favorable rather than objective tone. With all due respect to the subject whose work I personally admire, a more unbiased approach is to be expected from a wikipedia entry than a promotional blurb. --Anniika 02:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this, and may take a shot at getting the article more neutral-sounding, unless there are objections.... MinervaK (talk) 09:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Finlay-Jones et al.?

Regarding the "controversial claims" section: I think the article by Finlay-Jones et al. in Internet Photochemistry and Photobiology IS relevant for the discussion about avobenzone stability; the term "avobenzone" isn't mentioned in the article but its INCI name is (i.e. Butyl Methoxydibenzoylmethane - see avobenzone article). The article actually reviews a number of sunscreens containing this and similar ingredients, concluding "All sunscreen applications protected against the acute effects of UV exposure, but varied in the protection offered against systemic immunosuppression.". I therefore think this research is a valid support for Begoun's claim and suggest that the sentence "In support ... avobenzone stability" is removed.

217.122.171.194 (talk) 12:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm reading the source correctly, it doesn't review the photostability of Avobenzone and therefore doesn't support Begoun's claim that avobenzone is photostable.Pondle (talk) 16:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody needs to rewrite this article objectively. The "controversial claims" section is clearly a hatchet piece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.225.199.9 (talk) 18:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The prior debates likely no longer apply here. The page has been revised now to address bias statements, and any statements made are cited with valid sources. Paula's Choice (talk) 17:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest expanding the citation information per WP:CITE so it's meets the guideline better and is easier for others to review the article. --Ronz (talk) 00:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am not sure why the page still received a bias warning, after it has had plenty of revisions and edits from Wikipedia Editors, and the prior warning was removed. The revisions from editors were applied and even more citations were used. I am uncertain what more can be done? NathaninSeattle (talk) 21:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC) Nathan[reply]