Talk:Bath & Body Works/Archive 1

This 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.

Archive 1

Untitled

The Aromatherapy section is hideously wrong. When was this person editing this entry, 1995? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.243.4.11 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 6 December 2006.

???

No citations??—Preceding unsigned comment added by Arely5456 (talk • contribs)

Yeah... and some of the article sounds like a sales pitch. I mean, I work there, I love the place, I want people to like us, but the article frequently veers off into the "non-objective" side. Also, half of those product lines I have NEVER heard of in my 2.5 years with the company. Granted, they may be only at the flagship stores, but that should be noted. Also, there are a lot of other lines that are not listed (True Blue Spa, for example, or Frederic Fekkai Hair Care or Pure Simplicity.) Perhaps sometime I'll add those in- if someone else wants to, that would be pretty awesome too. Whateverlolawants 05:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm back- now the article is way too short! Shouldn't an article about a major retailer include stats like how many stores are open, how many people are employed there, a brief overview of the company history, the direction the company is headed, etc.? I'll try to find that info somewhere. Whateverlolawants (talk) 03:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

wow!

Whoever put in all the information about the different lines, it looks great! It must have been a long time since I checked this article, because it used to be a stub.--Nelliebellie 02:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup Needed

This article is in obvious need of cleanup. It lists the brand only up to the letter C. I can work on it, using info from the official sight. Does anybody know the years when the signature collection fragrances were released?

Why was the section about The Stores removed?

Why was the section about the stores removed? It was very well written. Can it be added again? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.96.69.153 (talk) 22:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bath & Body Works. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:09, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

- This is for a class assignment**

Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? The references were in no way reliable, but they were appropriate, I guess. They referenced a lot of pop culture sites, but for a major retailer of scented items, that might be the only sources available.

Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? Yes, everything is relevant. There was nothing that veered off topic or was distracting, because all of the information presented relates directly to Bath and Body Works.

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? For the most part, the article seems very neutral. There were a couple of sentences that, judging from the Talk page, remained from when someone essentially copied and pasted the Bath and Body Works website into the article, but they are not overly biased.

Where does the information come from? Are there enough and a variety of sources? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted? The information comes from pop culture sites, and then a couple sites that when I tried to follow them, I got confused by the set up of the site and gave up. They are definitely not credible sites, but they do not seem biased.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? There are not really any viewpoints needed, although it may be interesting to see stats from an economic point of view.

Check a few citations. Do the links work? Is there any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article? They work, but they don’t necessarily take you to the right place. I clicked on elleview.com and it took me to the Amazon home page, so that needs to be revisited.

Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? I think it’s fairly up to date, but the article could stand to have some refreshing. Also, statistics would be nice to see.

Based on your analysis, what changes would you make to the article to improve the verifiability and notability?

The article first and foremost needs some attention paid to the citations. Secondly, the article needs a bit of grammatical and syntactical help, because the sentences do not all flow nicely together at points. Katiegraves7 (talk) 03:54, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Shipments

Never received my order 2601:19B:C00:A950:D8F4:174F:CFA4:9D9B (talk) 15:03, 24 January 2023 (UTC)