Talk:Green marketing/Archives/2012

wikify
Wikified as part of the Wikification wikiproject! JubalHarshaw 16:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA
Far too many things being left unreferenced. The few references that are being used aren't even formatted correctly. Statements such as "According to the American Marketing Association," are useless unless you actually cite the instance where they say the statement. Article still needs quite a bit of work.--SeizureDog (talk) 15:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your review. Your main concern (citations) will be addressed appropriately. The article will be re-nominated afterwards.

&Lambda;ua&int; Wi  se  (talk) 16:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC) ✅, all questioned statements are sourced now, and some wikification has been done as well. &Lambda;ua&int;  Wi  se  (talk) 17:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The citations still aren't in the proper format. You need to be using such templates as Template:Cite web and Template:Cite journal. Check any other good or featured article to see how they're used.--SeizureDog (talk) 18:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "Proper format"??! There is no such a thing as a proper format!! In fact, using Citation_templates is optional per Citation_templates, and is neither encouraged nor discouraged by any other Wikipedia citation guidelines 'Period', and the article certainly satisfies these criteria where no more than simple reliable inline citation are required provided they follow FOOTNOTESstyle. Do not you agree?
 * Could you please cite the a WP guideline requiring the ref list to be in a certain format.
 * I will, however, see what I can do if I have time and convert the format of the citations. &Lambda;ua&int;  Wi  se  (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ ✅. all work is done now. &Lambda;ua&int;  Wi  se  (talk) 13:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Failed GA (again)
Sorry, but I quick-failed this when I saw the entire section "Greenhouse gas reduction market" had no sources whatsoever. Try again after sourcing it; this is otherwise a very good article. Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 03:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That section requires very little if not no sources at all; it is about economic reasoning and rationalism as an ad hoc thinking of future consequences and implications, which is perfectly normal and in complete accordance with WP:CITE. The info in this particular section is ad oculus and too commonsense to be sourced. I will try my best to ensure some sourcing of the material, but I would urge you to reconsider your review; the article complies with GA criteria (I know because I have been reviewing GAN).  &Lambda;ua&int;  Wi  se  (talk) 09:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)



That doesn't seem much like commons sense to me. It seems like statements about organizations that are (well, were) unsourced. Concerning your point that this article satisfies verifiability, you're right, it's not a uick-fail (i overstated this) but it's still a fail. Try resubmitting it to GA now that statement is sourced. Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 22:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Passed GA
Congratulations. Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 04:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reviewing the article. &Lambda;ua&int;  Wi  se  (talk) 11:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Good Article Reassessment/Removal from GA
It seems a bit ridiculous to even have considered as GA an article with such obvious flaws:


 * Wiki Text:
 * A recent survey discovered that 94 percent of all consumers prefer to do business with companies that demonstrate that they care about the environment. Almost 80 percent said they would pay more for environmentally friendly products.[8]


 * Supporting Reference text, every word the same as wiki except one:
 * A recent Gallup survey discovered that 94 percent of all consumers prefer to do business with companies that demonstrate that they care about the environment. Almost 80 percent said they would pay more for environmentally friendly products. In other words it would appear that going Green, and promoting this commitment, can be a profitable marketing strategy.
 * Supporting Reference: Ed Newman Marketing & Advertising Manager, AMSOIL INC.

Where does one start? Plagiarism, Copyright Violation, Advertising, Empty Reference, Hearsay ....

A marketing handbook riffing on "A recent survey" hardly meets the standard - go to Gallup, or find it in a genuine secondary source.

Was it granted GA because it looked nice? Did anybody even bother to read it? If read, did anyone consider and think about the content? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.56.60.86 (talk) 21:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It appears that the exceptionally poor reference, which was plagiarized to boot, was added by user Ikonoblast - and has been embedded in the article for some time. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Green_marketing&diff=next&oldid=69179871 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.56.60.86 (talk) 23:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

What a terrible Article! How the hell did this get GA status??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.181.215.94 (talk) 21:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)