Talk:Federal Trade Commission

Good Article nomination has failed
The Good article nomination for has failed
 * This article is a long way from being a good article. Here are the criteria, point by point. (1)Well written. It's OK, but "The Federal Trade Commission" or "FTC" is in almost every sentence, so it reads like a menu or a brochure, not a fluid article. (2)Factually accurate Who knows?  Not a single reference anywhere! (3) Broad in its coverage.  Nope.  Each of these subheadings should be several paragraphs.  The paragraphs here are good, as they give general overview, but it would be nice to have specific dates on when they were established, who is heading these commissions, maybe some controversies, decisions they've made, brief mention of, say, specific anti-trust cases.  To be fair, a few of these facts appear in a few of the sections, but there just isn't enough here. There should also be expansion of the information on process in "Activities of the FTC". (4)NPOV So far, good job here. (5) Stable Sure, but too stable.  This article will be very involved because of the research required of the topic, and this article less than 500 edits. But at least it isn't a vandal playground. (6) Images Very nice initial photo.  Maybe the Commission seal (does it have one?) could be included.  An infobox (a la United States Department of Energy) might be a nice addition.

--Esprit15d 13:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Article lacking official FTC logo
This article could be greatly improved by adding the official FC logo/seal.16:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess this image: http://www.ftc.gov/images/Homepage_footer_left.gif should do, even copyright wise, but I don't have the time to read the policies about uploading right now ^^. (nb: simply did a google image search) Aleph42 09:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. Carl Lindberg 21:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Photos
I'll leave it to someone else to make the call and implement, but I find it rather strange that there are two almost-identical images of the FTC building, stacked on top of each other. I'd just remove the second image, as it's lower-res (and lower contrast). I just wonder if there's a reason for this I'm overlooking? Fogster (talk) 03:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You are right. I am removing the second image. --71.225.51.30 (talk) 00:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The FTC's Mad Power Grab
The article might need to be updated after news of them setting new guidelines in relation to bloggers/tweeters etc. .Calaka (talk) 06:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Blog entry from prominent investor on the FTC vs Lifelock settlement that is pretty insightful and shows what the FTC attempts to accomplish in its settlements: http://whohastimeforthis.blogspot.com/2010/03/lifelock-settles-with-ftc.html Iamchmod (talk) 16:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Bye wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.113.231.208 (talk) 10:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Regulatory capture and failure to represent the public interest
Source for inclusion. Viriditas (talk) 19:54, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Layout
I don't make too many edits on Wikipedia, but I was wondering why the page isn't organized like the page of a government agency? There's no infobox, and that seems odd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thenextprez (talk • contribs) 02:08, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

The FTC’s top consumer protection official can’t go after Facebook — or 100 other companies
Leaving this here as a note to myself to add information to the article


 * https://www.theverge.com/2018/12/6/18129572/facebook-uber-ftc-conflict-interest-andrew-smith

John Cummings (talk) 11:25, 10 December 2018 (UTC)