Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Capri-Sun/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 27 March 2024 [1].

Capri-Sun

[edit]
Nominator(s): Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) and theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:12, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Capri-Sun debuted in West Germany in 1969. Since then, it has become a global brand, one made distinctive by its stand-up Doy-N-Pack pouch. Growing up, you could find a Capri-Sun in the lunchbox of that kid you hated. These days you can find them center-stage in French hip-hop culture as "the new ostentatious elixir of French rappers and gangsters". In the United States, Capri Sun is associated with wholesome things like picnics, soccer practice, and having for 16 years been licensed to one of the world's largest tobacco companies, which applied its expertise at both selling products to children and misleading the public about products' health effects, in a marketing strategy so effective that you're probably still thinking about that kid from two sentences ago. Childhood consumption of sugary beverages increased, and so did childhood obesity, but admittedly Pacific Cooler does taste great.

Initially, Tamzin and I thought this was gonna be a quick adventure – we thought we'd quickly flip a good number of soft drink articles, maybe even get a good topic. Capri-Sun quickly proved to be no insignificant task, though – it's the longest article either of us can put our names on, with every word of prose written from scratch. To our knowledge, this is the most comprehensive independent work on Capri-Sun in existence. We got it to GA in early 2023 after a couple months' work, making it one of two GAs on a soft drink and the only one on a juice beverage. Then, it just sat for a while. But after dusting off the ol' thing and giving it the last few bits it was missing, it is with much pride and added sugar that we finally push this towards the finish line. :) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) and theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:12, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie891

[edit]
  • reading the google translation of Doll 2009, I'm not seeing where he says it is "it one of the few globally prominent soft drinks not originating from the United States". Could you help me with what I'm missing?
    This is a summary of The drink from Germany enjoys special status in the beverage industry: 'When it comes to soft drinks, it was the case for decades that the Americans were number one in the world with their products. Capri-Sonne shows that there is another way,' says Günther Guder, board member of the German Federal Association Beverage wholesalers. [GTrans] I've added the quote to the reference for full clarity. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 20:41, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t think that saying the Americans were number one is the same thing as saying that few globally prominent soft drinks originate outside of the US, especially when the relevant text is quoted from a spokesman of the industry, who would presumably want to paint Capri Sun well Eddie891 Talk Work 22:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fair. I've removed the line. May loop back later if there's some good fact I can think of to put there. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 03:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems that 6 billion sales a year might be more common-- even the company itself cites that number. How'd you decide to go with 7 billion?
    That number was added to the article before the source you cite was published. I've updated it. Thanks. :) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 20:27, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guerillero

[edit]

I am going to abstain on supporting due to my review of the article for GA, but I have some thoughts.

Guerillero, there is no onus nor obligation to support or oppose any FAC and all reviewer comments are welcome. But there is no reason at all why you should refrain because you reviewed it at GAN. If anything the reverse, having already looked at it in detail you will be in a good position to advise the FAC coordinators whether it merits promotion here or not. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:24, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing was high quality a year ago, and it continues to be today. I do have a few thoughts:

  • I wonder if Carney 1992 should have a publisher since the report was internally published by the company
  • The Local should be The Local DE to match how the publication reports its name. It doesn't share editorial staff with The Local DK.
  • Zhu 2016 is fine because you attribute the facts to China Daily
  • Is there a secondary source that reports the switch back to foil bottoms? That seems like something that would get some traction
  • Good job on capturing the international perspective with sources in German, French, Spanish, and Ukrainian.

--Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:00, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Responding just to pt. 4 for now, I searched high and low, and the only sources I could find discussing the switch were social media discussion and the ABOUTSELF comments from Kraft/Capri Sun (one on Twitter, one on Facebook). This makes some sense: Packaging changes are usually only reported in trade publications unless there's an ad campaign or a strong public response, and even the trade pubs like BeverageDaily that do their own independent journalism are still usually guided there by press releases. And "we undid a popular change that we enacted to address a health concern" doesn't get a press release for some reason. :P -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 22:24, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
pt. 1 done :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:31, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As to pt. 2, looking at [2], I think either "The Local" or "The Local Germany" could be correct, but "The Local DE" seems to just be what's in the logo, not something that's used for a name. This is why I'd gone with |work=[[The Local]]|location=Germany, but I have no strong preference between that and |work=[[The Local Germany]]. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 04:08, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reported location on the masthead is Stockholm, SE -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 07:48, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Switched to "The Local Germany". -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 10:08, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Airship

[edit]

As always, these are recommendations, not demands; feel free to refuse with justification.

Many comments
Lead
  • I feel like the Wild company should be mentioned by name in the lead, as it is prominent in the infobox.
  • Why is the current yearly sales different in the lead and the body?
  • In the United States, these pouches were innovative as the first single-serving fruit juice containers. "were innovative as" seems oddly inserted (maybe to avoid a puffery-sounding "these innovative pouches"); but perhaps cut entirely as redundant?
    I'm also not seeing where "the first single-serving fruit juice containers [in the US]" is explicitly mentioned in the body.
    • Griffin, Sacharow & Brody says that Capri Sun entered a market "dominated by 46-oz. cans" and describes how it predated brick packaging in the United States. However, that isn't quite the same as being the first (necessarily... they may well have been), so I've reworded as these pouches predated the advent of Tetra Pak, in an era when fruit juice was usually sold in large containers
  • Most of the third lead paragraph summarizes just one paragraph in the "1991–present: Kraft Foods" subsection. I don't think this meets WP:LEADWEIGHT; by comparison, the other history subsections are either not covered at all ("Europe, Africa, and Asia") or barely covered.
  • the abandonment of "all-natural" for a time I don't see in the body if/when that time ended.

More to come. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:06, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brand history
  • I'm guessing Germany isn't linked because of MOS:OL? Why World War II then?
  • More led him/led to, which is too vague in the first case especially.
  • "Rudolf Wild & Co." changes to simply "Wild" in the second paragraph without really explaining why.
    • The company is introduced as "Rudolf Wild & Co. (better known as Wild)". We used the full name in the first paragraph to disambiguate from Rudolf Wild; in subsequent usage there isn't such ambiguity. (Hans-Peter is mentioned but not in a way that would be ambiguous with the company.) I'm open to better approaches but none come to mind immediately. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 02:25, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • but rather by ordering all of the machines they made. isn't the complete phrase it needs to be
  • The source called "Capri-Sonne 2015" does not appear to be via the Internet Archive, despite saying it is.
  • The name references the Italian island of Capri due to its status as a vacation destination. could use just the slightest bit more detail.
  • Muhammad Ali's first endorsement deal came as late as 1978? You learn something every day.
  • SiSi-Werke, the Wild subsidiary responsible for Capri-Sonne, said that is the attribution necessary?
  • By 1982, Capri-Sun was sold in 23 countries and the most popular fruit juice in 19 of them. it feels like a "was" is missing
  • Capri Sun AG and Capri Sun Group Holding AG and German company Wild comma(s)?
    • The full line is Swiss companies Capri Sun AG and Capri Sun Group Holding AG and German company Wild. So the lack of a comma is because the first two are nested under "Swiss companies". I've made this a bit clearer by adding an "of" before "German". -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 07:30, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any idea about how the Tetra Pak fared long-term in comparison to Capri Sun? What may have been seen as a forthcoming clash, as in the 1985 source, may not have actually happened. I know it remains a massive company, but did they actually collide or simply go separate ways?
    • My SYNTHy answer here is that the novelty of Doy-N-Pak—which at that point Shasta had exclusive rights to in the U.S.—combined with astute marketing of the product as refreshing, leveraging the fact that Doy-N-Pak heats up on a hot day more slowly than a Tetra Pak (and thus can give the illusion of being cold when it's actually room temperature), allowed Shasta/Altria/Kraft to maintain a niche for the product, while letting Tetra Pak otherwise corner the market. After the patent expired and manufacturing of stand-up pouches became cheaper (now one of the cheapest ways to package a beverage), stand-up pouches did begin to gain greater market share, although I'm not sure Kraft and Capri Sun Group see that as a good thing, what with the potential for trademark infringement.
      Again, that's the off-the-cuff answer synthesizing several sources I read for this. If there's a more specific thing you think should be addressed in the article, let me know and I can probably put together a more RS'd answer. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 02:25, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1983, the Capri Sun brand brought Shasta $28 million in sales... In 1990, Capri Sun sold 450 million pouches. is it possible to get a sales-pouches conversion for either of these two numbers?
  • As of 2022, Kraft licenses the Capri Sun brand in the United States, Canada, and Puerto Rico. what happened to Mexico?
    • I don't know. No one seems to know. There's the 2013 announcement, mentioned in footnote e, that Jumex was bringing Capri-Sun to Mexico, but that makes no mention of where Kraft's license went, and I've been unable to find a word of press coverage since of Capri-Sun in Mexico. [3] makes it appear that Jumex did indeed bring a product to market, but that's not really an RS. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 02:25, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • adapted those strategies what strategies? of selling to young people without marketing?
  • Through Kraft's acquisition of Capri Sun, however, Philip Morris could target a product to children feels like it could be cut to "Philip Morris targeted Capri-Sun at children..."
  • Similarly Philip Morris's campaign for Capri Sun to "their marketing campaign"
  • successful: In 2008 errant capital
  • The sentence In 2008, Capri Sun went from projecting a 5% drop in sales to a 17% increase because of a "Respect the Pouch" campaign aimed at kids between the ages of six and twelve. feels out of place; it seems to me that to follow a half-sentence on how a general marketing strategy was extremely successful, you'd want the sentence on how sales more than doubled across five years
  • In general the prose of this paragraph is lower quality than the rest of the article; it could use some copyediting/reorganising.
  • Which source supports still in the hope that they would give the drink to their children?
  • which by 2009 was the number-three consumer of the product who was number two?
  • Réunion is identified as "a French island in the Indian Ocean" only on its second mention.
  • I'm not sure and as of 2016 produces is the right place for the present tense; "in 2016, it produced" feels more appropriate
    • I tend to use present-tense as-of if the source states it without date-based qualification, past-tense if not. The source says La Réunion peut s’enorgueillir à ce jour de produire plus de Capri-Sun que l’Inde ou même l’Angola 'Réunion can take pride in today producing more Capri-Sun than India or even Angola'. That's date-qualified, but with an implication of maybe being a recent state of affairs, so I've changed to "by 2016 ... was producing". -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 06:34, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • They discontinued the brand 2020 ?
  • In general, the switching between millions of pouches and millions of dollars to talk about sales is a little annoying, but if the sources don't help on that matter, it's fine.

More to come. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:03, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Products

Last section to come. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:33, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reception and impact

Very nice article. Please ping when you're done with the above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]

Good to see this article at FAC; we don't get a lot of nominations about business topics. I started to read through to review, but found myself coming up with some sourcing questions, so I'll put some of those down here first.

  • 'After World War II, Rudolf Wild created Libella, which the Lexington Herald-Leader in 1998 described as "the first all-natural soda made with real fruit juice".' The Herald-Leader is not a good source for saying Libella is the first such soda, which is why I assume you phrase this as you do rather than in Wikipedia's voice. I'm not sure it's worth reporting at all, though. Do you have another source which would let you say "it was marketed as the first all-natural ..."? Perhaps Hans-Peter Wild's book?
    • Hans-Peter makes a narrower claim than the Herald-Leader, that it was "the first German branded drink based on natural fruit juice" (GTrans). I've replaced the claim with that, but it may make more sense to cut it outright, since it's only tangential to Capri-Sun. The more important thing is how Libella's success led to Capri-Sun's development, which I think the Herald-Leader is a fine source for. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 20:38, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I have to ask: have you been able to use Wild's book? It's in German, and I can see it's not going to be an unbiased source, but it would surely be useful for non-controversial historical detail, for correlating with other sources, and for giving attributed "inside" opinions. As far as I can see you only cite it for a minor detail. There's almost nothing about the brand between 1969 and 1978, for example; does Wild give any information about sales or marketing during that decade?
  • Have you been able to access German food industry trade magazine sources? I know that trade magazines can be an excellent source for business articles, but it's usually quite difficult to access them. I found this article, for example, which may or may not be useful, but it's paywalled.
    • A rare site where the free trial doesn't require giving a card up-front! That source proved helpful on some stats about brand performance as of 2009. I also found another useful source on the site about squash sales in Germany. Will look further to see if there's anything else usable. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 22:33, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I had a look in Category:Professional and trade magazines, which led me to this site. (I tried to link to the search results but there are square brackets that I can't be bothered to figure out how to encode.) If you go to publications in that site and then search for "Capri-Sun" you should get nine hits, and it looks like the archives are not paywalled. Haven't looked to see if those results are useful but the archive only goes back to 1999. That journal began publication in 1947 so there might be more in the dead-tree version. I had a look in the equivalent German category but didn't see any equivalent magazines listed though that doesn't mean there isn't one. Will look around some more. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for that. One of these was already in use; a further three added small useful details, but none give great insight into company structure or anything like that, so I'm pessimistic that older issues would either. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 01:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found this, though frankly I can't figure out what it is or whether it's a reliable source. I mention it because it gives a date for the introduction of the organic versions of the drinks, which is something the article doesn't mention. A minor point, but it reinforces my sense that trade journal sources might be important for getting a complete picture of the history of the business and the brand.

So I'm a bit concerned about completeness of coverage. Let me know what you think; I'd like to settle this before going on to review the content. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A couple more possible sources.

  • This lists back issues of several different German food industry trade magazines; I haven't looked to see how far back they are archived or if they are paywalled.
  • I see you do have some academic sources. Searching Google Scholar for "Capri-Sun" comes up with a lot of hits; just wanted to make sure you'd looked at this or a similar academic search.
  • This might be worth a look.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:07, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Mike Christie: with all due respect, I don't think it's reasonable, even at FAC, to expect that editors will comb through stacks of unsearchable, foreign-language, possibly paywalled sources to find possible mentions or articles. If you have a source that mentions things you think we should add, that's certainly welcome, but I don't know that we have the time or the energy to steward more than that. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:54, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't currently plan to oppose, because I don't know of any sources that you're missing -- it was more of a question about how you'd approached getting the information. I used to be in the oil business, and if I wanted to write an article about a particular rig or platform, I would absolutely have to get access to Rigzone, one of the trade publications. Without that there would be no way to get complete information. Similarly in the IT business, for small and medium-sized companies there may not be much coverage in the national press, but trade journals are likely to cover them. You do have a lot of cites to trade journals which makes me more confident, but I hope you see what I'm driving at. Just one specific question: has at least one of you read Hans-Peter Wild's book? I think that when you know a source like that exists, even if it's not independent, you have to read it to say you have complete coverage. I have to say I would consider opposing if you don't know what's in that book. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:11, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mike Christie: Tamzin could speak to this better than I can, but I will say that we cite Mr. Capri-Sun—Die Autobiographie multiple times. Trade journals > blatantly non-independent source, so I think it's best used sparingly, but they can check in on whether there's more in there to use. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:21, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mike Christie: First off, sorry for taking so long to get to your most substantive concerns here. I've been busy for the last few weeks and didn't want to do you the disrespect of phoning this in, so I've focused on more bite-sized concerns. But I've got today free to sit in a library and dig through sources, so here we go.
    I've looked through every article on the LZ and IFT websites that mention Capri-Sun, and incorporated a number of details I found there. (More than just the two cited; several times I found something there but then cited a better or more accessible source found elsewhere.) For reference, here is the composite diff of every change to the article since you left these comments (including some unrelated changes). As to the modul100 source, I think it's probably reliable, but am less confident in the verifiability of the site it's hosted on, but in either case we've mostly avoided getting too nitty-gritty on drink varieties, because soft drink articles tend to drift toward listcruft of that variety. (See Special:Permalink/1136534297.) But I understand that your point was more general than that, more about whether we are missing important details from trade journals. What I can tell you, having gone through the LZ articles, is that I think we've now mined about as well as we can with contemporary German trade sources. LZ is of course only one source, but generally major trade journals cover fairly similar articles.
    The real question, then, is older sources. Before I get to that, I'll address Mr. Capri-Sun. Sadly, I do not speak German. I can mostly follow the flow of a sentence, and I can use the Kindle web-app to search for a German keyword, and then manually type the (un-copy-paste-able) output into Google Translate, and I've gotten a few useful things out of the book this way. But I can't do what I'd do with an English-language source, which is skim it at about 20 seconds per page until I find something relevant. If a German-speaker like Kusma would like to obtain a copy and look through, I absolutely welcome that assistance. But ultimately I go back to leek's point that anything we find in this is of limited use verifiability-wise. It could maybe point us in the right direction about some things, but that would only be useful if we could find secondary sources to check against.
    Which brings us to: There are presumably German trade and newspaper sources from the previous century that could flesh out the history of the German brand much like we've used Newspapers.com to flesh out the American brand. I don't know what those sources would be, though, nor whether they are online or even remotely accessible, nor whether they are verifiable and independent. If you or anyone else would like to point me to such sources, I will continue to make my best effort to incorporate them where appropriate. Otherwise, though, I feel that I am left with a Russell's teapot of comprehensiveness: Supposed better sources whose existence I can neither disprove nor accept.
    Ultimately, the question is whether this article "neglects ... major facts or details", and if you feel it does, then of course I respect that. But I will submit that, if we're talking about digging through offline German trade journals from the 1970s, or going through a billionaire's vanity autobiography, whatever details would be gleaned there are not "major", for the simple reason that contemporary reliable sources do not see them as major. (Much like how the article would still be comprehensive without some of the details we have about the U.S. release, even if they make for interesting color.) If you see it otherwise, I do understand. Personally I'm happy with the work I've done to get this as comprehensive as possible given the sources at hand—and, again, remain happy to do more of that work if more sources become available.
    I apologize for the long post. This aims to synthesize all outstanding concerns above, so if there's any particular detail I still haven't addressed, please let me know. Thanks. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 16:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Tamzin, thanks for the detailed reply. You make good arguments about both Wild's book and about the likely importance (or otherwise) of any information in old German trade sources. And it's reasonable to request anyone suggesting there might be sources out there to put up or shut up. I have no objections remaining from a source point of view. I haven't read the article in sufficient detail to be able to support on content, but I see you have two detailed ongoing reviews. When those are concluded (with supports, I hope) please let me know if you still need more reviews and I'll come back. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With the above resolved, here are comments from a read-through.

  • Suggest linking GmbH.
  • "Sales increased another to 250 million the next year": looks like some editing debris?
  • 'Starting in 2018, Capri Sun Group began assuming direct control of more of its distribution, starting with Switzerland, Austria, the Middle East, China, and Poland, and in 2023 ending its agreement with CCEP. As a result, in March 2024, Capri Sun Group began to take over operations in Belgium, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom." What does "As a result" connect to? It seems to refer to the end of the agreement with CCEP, but the dates make that unlikely. If it's meant to refer to "began assuming direct control" I think some rephrasing is needed.
  • 'The company has cited a desire to be more "agile and responsive".' They cited this desire as the reason for wishing to take direct control? Again I think that's the reading but it should be clearer.
  • "had accrued a significant amount of experience selling cigarettes to young people. However, they had been barred from marketing cigarettes to children; to circumvent this barrier" If I understand the intended meaning, how about "had been barred from marketing cigarettes to children, but had accrued significant experience in selling to young people before the ban had been implemented. To make use of this expertise"? This is a slight change in meaning and I don't know if the sources would support this wording -- I'm assuming this is what was intended.
    • it's not entirely supported by the sources with strict respect to Capri-Sun, but it's support with respect to the overall trend (which included Kool-Aid, Sunny-D, et al.), and that's good enough for me. Implemented :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Their marketing campaign emphasized flashy colors and beach scenes": suggest "The marketing campaign" -- the referent for "their" is quite a long way back at this point and I think the meaning is clear without it.
  • "A 2019 review in The BMJ found that the marketing techniques introduced by Philip Morris were still in use, even after Kraft became independent of the company in 2007": why does the source point this out? It seems unremarkable that a company with an effective strategy would keep using that strategy despite severing their connection with its source.
    • I'm not sure I'd agree, to be honest. Capri-Sun's marketing technique was uniquely the brainchild of execs at Philip Morris and the background they brought to it – I find it notable that they kept up that strategy even after no longer being connected to that source. Plus, it does slyly introduce when Kraft became independent. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The statement comes at the end of a paragraph which lists several marketing campaigns, at least some of which (e.g. bright colours) don't seem particularly unusual, and the statement doesn't specify which marketing techniques it's referring to, so it appears to be either the mostly recently mentioned or all of them. If there's something unique or at least unusual about Philip Morris's marketing, I think we have to say so for this statement to make sense. Even then, why would it be surprising that a company continues a successful tactic? Perhaps what you're saying is that there was something about the marketing that could be criticized in some way? If so that's not coming through. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 06:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      We struggled a lot with how to properly section all of the information, since this breaks a fair bit of new ground; in this case, we thought that the advertising tactics should be in the "brand history" section and the fallout of it (childhood obesity crisis and all) would go elsewhere. So, the tobacco company's intentional screwing of childrens' health is (implicitly) heavily criticized, just in another section. That said, point taken; let me think on that one for a bit, and open to suggestions :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @theleekycauldron: How does this look to you? We could also throw in a {{see below}} if desired. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 16:56, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That works for me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      works for me! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "starring a character modeled after the male leads of romance novels designed to disinterest children, before changing tack to pitch Capri Sun": a bit too compressed for me -- I don't understand what the ad did.

Down to Products; more tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More:

  • If Capri Sun Strawberry Kiwi was the lowest in the least healthy tier, with 34 grams of sugar, but Capri Sun Lemon Lime, with lower sugar, was also placed in the tier, isn't that a contradiction?
    • I don't think it was the lowest in the least healthy tier, where are you seeing that?
      That's how I read "A 2009 comparison of various flavored drinks published by the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health classified Capri Sun Strawberry Kiwi, along with all of the other surveyed fruit punch and fruit juice drinks, in the least healthy tier. Drinks in this tier, which had a classification requirement of more than 12 grams (2.9 teaspoons) of sugar per 12 ounces (.35L), were recommended for consumption only "sparingly and infrequently". At 34 grams (8.1 tsp) of sugar, the drink's sugar content was the lowest in the category." What does "the drink" in the last sentence refer to if not Strawberry Kiwi? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Ah, right you are. It was the lowest in the 'fruit drinks' category, while Lemon Lime is a sports drink, which is hopefully clearer now. Might be worth cutting if it's jsut an arbitrary line, though. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "placed in the red tier": presumably this is the least healthy tier but unless you can find a deft way to make the equivalance clear I think it would be easier to just say "least healthy tier" again.
  • "In 2022, Capri Sun lowered its sugar content from 14 grams to 8": presumably this is per 12 ounces? But we just said that two of their drinks were at 34 and 20 grams; where does the 14 come from?
    • per 12 ounces, yeah – my best guess is that, the harvard source being from 2012, Capri Sun's cut of HFCS in 2015 was what took it from 34 to 14. Can't be sure, though. Can't find sources to substantiate, but I've moved the HFCS sentence in between. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • per this, it looks like the switch to HFCS (which took it from 60 calories to 50) also took the sugar content down from ~34g to ~13g, but I don't have a source that says that out loud. I'll add a bit about it cutting calories, and hope that gets the message across. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This is the last outstanding point; sorry, but I'm still not getting it. In "Capri Sun lowered its sugar content from 14 grams to 8" what does "its" refer to? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:32, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "disputing the 2007 tagline": I had to look back up the paragraph to confirm this was "all-natural"; I think it would easier on the reader just to say 'disputing the "all-natural" tagline'.

More tonight or tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More:

  • "Capri-Sun had a line removed from Naps's "À part ça" (2017) that associated the brand with drug use": by lawsuit? Or the threat of one?
    • The exact quote is "La marque a exigé la suppression du clip de la plateforme de vidéos, et la mention de la boisson a été remplacée par un blanc." 'The brand demanded the removal of the music video from video platforms, and the mention of the drink was replaced by a blank'. I've added a bit more detail on that, but afraid I can't give any greater insight into the nature of the coercion/threat. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 17:47, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "since the video of German man André Ortolf's successful attempt went viral": suggest "since the video of a successful attempt by André Ortolf of Germany went viral".

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One more suggestion: you might link "Calorie" when you first use it -- the uppercase for nutritional calories is not widely known and it would be best to provide a link. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:32, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Clarified the sugar content sentence as best I could (sourcing here is rough), and cut the Calories out (kinda like Capri Sun halfheartedly did) :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Thanks for your patience on this; the article looks great. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: A heartfelt thank you for all of your help :) the article looks to be in much better shape because of it. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:16, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Kusma

[edit]

Capri-Sonne! Never liked it much as a kid (I grew up in West Germany). Let's see if I like the article better. —Kusma (talk) 10:32, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is there any information on the use of the island of "Capri" as a name for marketing reasons? It seems fine as it is in the article now, but I wonder whether anyone has noticed that the same thought processes must have led to the names Langnese Capri for an orange ice cream and Ford Capri for a car (Capri-Sun seems to have used Ford Capris for advertising a few years back)?
    • [4] mentions the Ford Capri but it's not clear from that whether its name directly influenced the drink's. Hans-Peter Wild's autobiography does not mention the Ford Capri or Langnese Capri. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe)
    I didn't even know that it was discussed whether there was information on this, but I did find and add it with some neat commentary! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:21, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am a bit surprised by the contrast only with 1.4l fruit juice can -- was there nothing fruity at all sold in drink cans or small bottles or other single use packaging?
  • Anything known about the Chinese name and its use in marketing? 果倍爽 Guǒbèishuǎng ("fruit extra bright" or something like that) is written on the company HQ picture.
  • Contents: "child obesity rates in the United States began rising, a phenomenon attributed in part to the rise in sugary drinks consumption across the board[88]–including food industry advertising, which has been linked to a rise in obesity in both children and adults." could perhaps do with simplifying by putting the advertising into an extra sentence. It is not so clear what "including" refers to.
  • What is "HFSS food"? Could use a gloss.
  • "Capri Sun apple juice's use of citric acid" does this mean "the use of citric acid in Capri Sun's apple juice"?
  • Packaging: Is Doy-N-Pack named for the Doyen family?
  • The Green Dot (symbol) is something that is essentially on every packaging of consumer goods in Germany. It feels weird to have this mentioned after "subject to scrutiny".
  • Plastic straws have been banned in the UK since 2020 (and also in the EU since 2021), which is important context to the use of paper straws by Capri-Sun that is missing in the article.
  • Reception and impact: I find it weird that this section starts with a review of one specific product instead of talking about the 50 years of orange drinks preceding it, which have had the impact of turning Capri-Sonne into a massive global brand. Perhaps this is just a question of using the right headline for the content, but it is not the content I was expecting under this headline. Perhaps "product reviews"? The content of "public perception" is much more like what I would expect in the context.

I looked through the German article to see whether anything from there seems to be missing here.

  • They say the product was originally meant to be seasonal.
  • There are and were various notable sports sponsorships, for example they had their own cycling team for a while. This is mentioned in the hatnote only, and should be in the body.
    • I was on the fence here since there isn't much by the way of secondary sourcing on this, but it's in Mr. Capri-Sun, which shows that the owner of the brand at least sees it as relevant, and it only takes up a sentence, so, sure, added. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 19:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main competitor of Capri-Sonne in the 1970s and 1980s was Sunkist, who sold orange drinks in tetra paks.
    • I couldn't find sourcing for these first and third claims in dewiki, but I'll add anything you can find an RS for :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also struck out on seasonalness. Mr. Capri-Sun does not contain the word "saisonales". I could source Sunkist to Mr. Capri-Sun (p. 226), but I'm on the fence about that given that it's non-independent. Have looked for a better source and can't find one. Thoughts welcome. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 18:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, I couldn't find the "seasonal" thing using Google books either, and it is easier for me to think of search terms. Searching for "Jahreszeit" actually brings up something about winter marketing. For Sunkist, I think quoting Wild with attribution could be OK. —Kusma (talk) 22:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Sunkist one is e.g. in Wild p. 187 The "seasonal" claim is likely also from that book. As for other sources, perhaps this is helpful for criticism of the packaging? From there I found this article with the nice quote "Capri-Sonne war der fruchtsaftgewordene Antichrist der Ökobewegung", "Capri-Sun was the ecological movement's antichrist turned into fruit juice". I'll look at your other replies soon. —Kusma (talk) 23:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This comparison of kids' fruit drink brands also seems potentially helpful. —Kusma (talk) 23:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that the article seems reasonably comprehensive. Nice work! —Kusma (talk) 11:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Kusma, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most of my comments have been addressed, but I'd like to hear a response to my 23:15/23:17, 19 February 2024 sources that kind of explain how Capri-Sonne was universally reviled amongst 1980s ecologically minded Germans, both for its packaging and its content. I know that it is now a global brand, but I think its German history could be covered slightly more thoroughly. —Kusma (talk) 07:21, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from JennyOz

[edit]

Hello Tamzin and leeky, congrats on the thorough job you've done on researching and writing this comprehensive article! I felt like the only person who'd never heard of this product and, unfortunately, that has contributed to me having a rather long list of questions and suggestions. Whilst there are many, any you agree to implement are very tiny tweaks. Mammoth article gets mammoth amount of comments...

lede

  • targeting different national flavor profiles - preferences?
  • Characterizations of the juice drinks as "all-natural" have led to conflict in several countries between consumer advocates who highlight the high sugar content and low juice percentage, and Capri-Sun and its licensees, who have generally maintained that the term correctly describes the ingredients. - comma after advocates?
  • drink of choice in poor areas - low-income areas?
    • To me "low-income" just seems like a euphemism for "poor", and a less accurate euphemism at that. Most retirement communities, for instance, will in the literal sense be low-income. Being poor is about having few assets, not about making little money. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 22:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • a negative award from Foodwatch - introduce ie consumer rights advocacy group?

Brand history

Origins and global overview

Europe

North America

1979–1991: Shasta Beverages

1991–present: Kraft Foods

Products

  • are sweeter than those used in Europe - remove "used" or swap to offered?
  • In addition to the main line of juice-concentrate-based beverages - swap second hyphen to MOS:SUFFIXDASH ie juice-concentrate–based
  • A "No Added Sugar" version debuted in 2015 - UK?
  • through use of Stevia as a sweetener - lower case stevia
  • CCEP changed the composition of some its Capri-Sun flavors - some of
  • United Kingdom's new rules on HFSS food - insert (high in fat, sugar and salt) seeing target article doesn't explain acronym (or other way around per (HFCS) in following sentence)
  • sued Kraft for deceptive packaging, alleging that its usage of high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) made its claimed "all-natural" status inaccurate. Kraft announced a day later - is that a day after Florida woman announced her intention to take action or after a court had ruled (per "sued")?
  • and sucralose to sugar and Stevia - stevia

Packaging

Reception and impact

  • Chad Eschman of Vinepair reviewed - cap P ie VinePair (and in cite)
    • done :)

In media

Public perception

Notes

Citations

Trade publications

caption

Consistencies

  • age ranges of children - all but two are given in numerals. Those in words are "aged six to twelve decreased and "between the ages of six and twelve"
  • pouches - Doy-N-Pack (x4) v Doy-N-Pak (x3, including in caption) - intentional change?
  • conversions - some are given as imperial --> metric, others vice versa - though perhaps this is intentional?
    • I mean, it is an article with lots of ties to specific countries? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • More precisely, I would say, containers are defined by whatever size is used on the label, because that's how the containers are known. E.g. there's no such thing as a 1.4-L can in the U.S.; there's the 46-fl-oz can, which happens to convert to about 1.36 liters. For units used in the abstract, e.g. the total volume of Capri-Sun sold annually, we've used metric. The one exception is the mixed-unit grams-per-fluid-ounce used by Harvard. I don't have a strong feeling of what to do with those, but I guess would tend against changing to pure metric, for convenience to readers who might go on to look at the source and see different numbers than we've given. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 20:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Misc

  • called foil pouches - are they plastic lined? I see in first sentence of Packaging "laminate vacuum pouches" so "laminate" means 'lined'? I don't know if any of the sources mention but there may be something to mine from Retort pouch.
  • maybe at vacuum - link vacuum packed?
  • the lede first sentence has C-S "is a brand of juice concentrate drinks" but it's not purchased as a concentrate? That's the base in its production line? By the time the product is retailed, water has been added and it is ready to drink?

New - there has been a flurry of activity on the article since I prepared this review 2 days ago. I have removed some of my comments that have since been addressed; sorry if I have missed any.

  • cite magazine |last1=JB |title=Capri Sun launches 'bottle can' - presumably the author's initials. Could that be formatted last1=B first1=J ?
    • We cite three trade journal articles that identify the author only by initial—coincidentally, two by a "J.Be." and one by a "JB". Honestly, I couldn't find any clear MoS or CS1 guidance on what to do in such cases. Initialed bylines are generally intended as a back-reference to the masthead, so, the authors at Rayon Boissons, "J.Be." appears to refer to co-editor-in-chief Jacques Bertin. (There's also a Justine Bessaudou, but she seems to have gone by J.Bes. prior to their switch to full names some time in the past few years.) JB appears to be Jim Butschli. To me this all falls into a gray area of "say what's on the source", since, is the source the article or the magazine? But due to the nontrivial amount of research involved I felt that it was better to side with not expanding the names. Either way, sure, I see the case for first/last-ing it. Done. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 21:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Santolaria, Nicolas (23 November 2020). "Le Capri-Sun, boisson addictive passée des cours de récré au gangsta rap" - spare } curly bracket at end this cite

That's it from me. Enjoyed the learning. JennyOz (talk) 08:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JennyOz: thanks so much for the review! It's been quite the task to get to all of these improvements, but it looks like we're ready for your feedback again. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both very much for tweaks and other explanatory comments. I've been through each of your changes and other replies. I have added a few comments above. No dealbreakers! This is a very well-researched and well-written account of a brand. I had not heard of CS before so thanks for your patience with my myriad questions! I am happy to s'port promotion. JennyOz (talk) 13:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

[edit]

We're seven weeks in and only the single support. I've added it to the urgent; if the nomination doesn't attract more support in the next few days, it is liable to be archived. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@David Fuchs: we have two supports, one from JennyOz and one from AirshipJungleman29. We've addressed all of Kusma and Mike Christie's concerns – we're waiting on the former to respond, and the latter will respond once the former does. There's no outstanding article work we can do to push this towards passing. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:48, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to do a full review this week. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library)<
Given that there are two supports I'll probably wait for Kusma to finish before starting. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie, I think I'm done reviewing. I'm happy to help with translating/skim reading German sources, but I don't have the energy to go hunting for more sources. I think I'll end up supporting, but I need to sleep now, and will try to make up my mind tomorrow. —Kusma (talk) 22:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: as an update, all of the outstanding reviews on this page have concluded, and we're now at four supports. I hope that's enough to avoid archival! Especially because this one's headed towards the bottom of the listings page. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have just requested a source review for it Leeky. Unless something horrible comes out of that it should be safe for a while. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
perfect, thank you! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harry

[edit]

Not checking references or source-text integrity etc, mostly just prose:

  • with licensees including Kraft Foods don't use "with" to join two clauses like that, which forces a change in tense. Use a semicolon or a full stop, then you can lose the "with" and continue in the present tense (cf. User:Tony1/Noun plus -ing).
  • Same goes for "with the exact cut-over dates varying by country" in footnote c and probably other instances.
  • Globally, its best-known flavor is Orange Is orange a proper noun?
  • By 1982, Capri-Sun was sold in 23 countries Would be interesting to know which new markets (maybe continents or regions) were being exploited if the sources elaborate
  • Capri-Sun in 18 countries is "bottle" the best verb? I suppose "pouch" doesn't really work as a verb!
  • with its marketing director for new products telling a journalist As above; there are other instances
  • You have a quite a few footnotes and they get a bit distracting in places where there are several of them in quick succession. Is he information in all of them absolutely necessary but not so necessary that it needs to be in the main body? Also, I get why you repeat footnote a but I don't think it's necessary.
    • The fourth usage of footnote a was an editing error and I've removed it. For the other two in the body, as the community has recently affirmed in a different context, readers don't read articles from top to bottom, and given that this detail is particularly confusing (four different companies called "Capri Sun", plus the product itself), I think it makes sense to have the footnote both when the Wild subsidiaries are first mentioned and when the Kraft subsidiary is first mentioned. I could take or leave the footnote in the infobox.
      As to other efns, I think they're all good uses of information that helps the reader understand context better, but would be undue to mention in the article. The two that might straddle the boundary are the Mexico and Canada efns. They're there because we didn't want to give too much weight to two markets that reliable sources have pointedly ignored, and whose exact status in the past decade is unclear. (You have no idea how many hours I have spent trying to get a clear answer on the current status of Capri Sun in Canada.) So, if you think those should be in the body, I'm open to it, but I guess that's something I'd want to discuss more. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 14:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • with its marketing director for new products telling a journalist Bit repetitive of the previous sentence. Can't we just say when the US was included?
  • Capri Sun was now being pushed to children the use of "push" here feels like a value judgement, not a neutral statement
    • to the extent that "push" is a loaded verb, that's only because it implies that the company knowingly pushed harmful products to people who didn't know better – an implication supported by the attitude and findings of every reliable source we could find on the subject. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 6 and 14, a significant shift in the product's marketing strategy Not far above, you tell us the product is aimed at 7-10-year-olds; expanding the range by a year or two either side doesn't feel like a significant shift to me (compared to marketing it to older teenagers or adults, for example) or have I missed something? Or do you mean the company rather than the product?
  • aimed at kids between the ages of 6 and 12 "kids" is too informal to be encyclopaedic, and repeating the age group feels redundant. If it can't be helped, suggest shortening to "6–12-year-olds")
  • They discontinued the brand in 2020 Not clear from the preceding sentence who "they" are or which brand was discontinued.
  • Again, not sure the flavour names should be treated as proper nouns but willing to listen to arguments.
    • My thought on this would be that consistenty is king, and not all Capri-Sun flavors are named so simply. Pacific Cooler, for instance, doesn't work as an actual modifier. So I think the brand names should remain capitalized as brand names. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:57, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure you need the footnotes on the flavour names when the explanatory box is right there.
  • British retailer Tesco announced that it would stop selling might be worth noting that this would probably have a major impact on sales; Tesco is far and away the biggest grocery retailer in the UK.
  • Packaging: The distinctive Doy-N-Pack pouches were developed by Rudolf Wild & Co. in collaboration with Thimonnier, a French company that primarily manufactured sewing machines Haven't we established this above?
  • attributed in part to the rise in sugary drinks consumption across the board what are you getting at with "across the board"? I don't think it adds anything.
  • I disagree with this revert. Both the subclause "according to..." and the name of the son require parenthetical commas (which don't imply that there was only one son) in formal writing.
    • I have always been taught that comma-offsetting a term like "X's son" means that they are the person's only son. See for instance this from the L.A. Times: So technically, without a comma [in 'My wife, Lea'] you're saying that her name is there to indicate which of your multiple wives you're talking about. Or this tweet from the AP: If you leave out the comma [in 'I love my husband, Nicky.'], it indicates you have at least one other husband: 'I love my husband Nicky but am less fond of my husband Joe.' I notice both of these are AmEng style authorities—is this maybe an EngVar matter?

Interesting read, and not much to criticise in 4.5k words. You've managed to chart the changing attitudes to these sorts of drinks well without straying off-topic or turning the reader off. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: Thanks for the review! leek and I have both responded above, if you'd like to take a look. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 14:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Harry ? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I've had other stuff going on. I haven't forgotten about this. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The MoS is quiet on the comma issue (unusual for the Mos!). I'd be willing to chalk that up to an ENGVAR issue if there are no other opinions though the AP tweet appears consistent with my edit. I think the "with" issue is largely unresolved; the way you're using it, I don't think it's a grammatical construction—it doesn't match any of the uses given by Merriam-Webster, for example, and is comparable to the examples in Tony's essay. Even if we accept that a few uses are legitimate, you're using it 12 times in the current version (excluding the one "with which", which is perfectly fine). Other than that, I'm satisfied. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Harry: I suspect this is also a regional thing, because this is pretty standard writing in American English (used twice in this Free access icon article today in The New York Times, for instance). This broadly falls under Webster's sense 4, but is described more explicitly in other dictionaries including sense 17 on Dictionary.com (used as a function word to specify an additional circumstance or condition: 'We climbed the hill, with Jeff following behind.') or, for that matter, sense 4 on Wiktionary (Used to add supplemental information, especially to indicate simultaneous happening, or immediate succession or consequence. ... 'The match result was 10-5, with John scoring three goals.'). All of that said, I agree it's a bit repetitive as used here. I've reworded six instances of the construction. I count five remaining uses, all of which seem consistent with the definitions quoted above. (If there's a 12th other than the "with which", I'm not spotting it or I've miscounted.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 00:26, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's common in journalistic writing, especially places like sub-headers, but (should be) less common in encyclopaedic writing, especially where we don't have column inches to worry about. But I'm happy with the tweaks you've made. Support on 1a and 2a/2b; haven't looked at the others in detail. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Spot-check upon request. I kind of notice that there is a mix between various source formats in the citations section. What's EDTECH? I am not sure I like the "A study..." things in the health and public perception section; do we have some review studies rather than single studies? Looks like otherwise we are using pretty major publications and some connected sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:41, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re I am not sure I like the "A study..." things in the health and public perception section; do we have some review studies rather than single studies?: I think this is distinguishable from a MEDRS or MEDRS-like standard of sourcing. The underlying principle here – the harmfulness of sugary drinks on health – is incredibly well-established in MEDRS to the point where mentioning it here would be redundant. The actual work we're citing – how much sugar is in these drinks, and surveys on how people perceive the sugar content – is not strictly related to questions of medicine. If someone published a study on how Capri-Sun specifically affects the human body long-term, yeah, that would probably fail MEDRS, but apart from that, I'm not sure that there's any reason to expect a literature review for the information we're bringing. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know this isn't the kind of information we want MEDRS sources for, but the problem with using such individual studies is that it's extremely easy to (deliberately or inadvertently) cherry-pick and overgeneralize them. That needs some safeguards against. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're not wrong, but I think that's true of any source. My assessment is that the current sourcing in the article matches the WP:DUE balance of reliable sources available; if you think that the article is off-balance, feel free to propose more sourcing we're missing. I don't think that relevant literature reviews have any useful information, but if you have them, I'd love to use them. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re I kind of notice that there is a mix between various source formats in the citations section.: could you elaborate a bit on what needs fixing? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:53, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure why some sources have quotes and others don't. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:37, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, the quotes are for the more complex citations, but Tamzin tends to favor them more than me in general. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've included quotes in cases where the relevant part of the source might not be immediately obvious to a reader clicking through, or where the body of the article uses a translation of a non-English quote, in line with WP:FOOTQUOTE. I have gone ahead, though, and removed the footquotes about pouch size, since that's an uncontroversial detail cited to two pretty short sources. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 14:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re EDTECH: here's a link to an infopage for the page we're citing on the EDTECH website. Looks to me like a small-time academic publisher. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:55, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW User:Headbomb/unreliable flags that one as predatory. Of course the list used by Headbomb could be wrong in this instance, but it is perhaps worth double checking. —Kusma (talk) 23:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct, and Tamzin found on further examination that Gibbs and Steele probably aren't real people :) I've fixed it up. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:59, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I think we're ready for another look, if there's anything outstanding you wanted to respond to. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't have much to add, other than the caveat that there is a lot of sources, many of which I am not deeply familiar with. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Capri-Sun/archive1&oldid=1215926863"