Talk:Proactiv/GA2

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Edge3 (talk · contribs) 02:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi there! I'll review this article. Edge3 (talk) 02:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll check the rest of the article in more detail, but here are a few quick comments: ✅ ✅ ✅ at least best I could. The sources specify the active ingredients, but are not as specific about the role of each one.
 * The lead section should be expanded per WP:LEAD. It currently does not mention the history of the product. It also mentions the existence of "different versions, such as 'extra strength' and Proactiv+", without first describing the original version or its active ingredients. I think these topics should be briefly covered in the lead. Furthermore, the lead focuses too much on celebrity endorsements, since it explicitly names celebrities like Katy Perry, Avril Lavigne, and Justin Bieber. The names could be removed from the lead, so that you can focus more on the other marketing strategies. Indeed, while only $12-15 million are spent on endorsements, $200 million are spent on commercial air-time, and $100 million on traditional marketing. In short, the lead section should be revised and expanded to give appropriate weight to each topic discussed in the article. I think 1-2 paragraphs will suffice.
 * Mentioning Lindsay Lohan's arrests drunk driving and drug possession seems to be gossip and irrelevant to Proactiv's marketing. I have removed the statement per the WP:BLP policy, particularly WP:BLPGOSSIP. Please discuss before restoring this content.
 * In the "Products" section, it might be good to describe the specific role of the cleanser, toner, and treatment.


 * Are there reliable sources that have information on Proactiv's production? Who produces the product? How many kits are sold in a given time period? This might be a good piece of info to add to the "Products" section.
 * Unfortunately I wasn't able to find anything other than the $850 million number already in the article. CorporateM (Talk) 19:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The following sentence seems to have words to watch: "Proactiv is best known for its infomercials and advertisements that use celebrity spokesmodels." In particular, I think that the "best known" part is not fully supported by the sources, and should be reworded to better represent verifiable facts.
 * ✅ I just trimmed it, though it's possible it belongs if a better source can be found - the current source just mentioned it in passing. CorporateM (Talk) 04:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

This is where I'll stop for now. Overall, you've done a great job so far! Unless I see any major issues, we should be able to go through this review fairly quickly. Edge3 (talk) 03:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for you initial revisions. Here are more comments:
 * Please address the URL and access date formatting issue in the following citation:


 * The following sentence has too many commas, which distract the reader. Please consider simplifying it to make the sentence flow better: "After graduation, the two, now dermatologists, started their own practices, before deciding to create an acne treatment together that was focused on being preventative."


 * The following sentence is not fully supported by the first source: "They brainstormed business ideas with executives and market researchers who were invited to dinner parties at Rodan's house." The source ("The Truth About Starting a Business") does not explicitly mention executives and market researchers.
 * The sentence quoted above also provides a second citation ("What's Stopping You?: Shatter the 9 Most Common Myths Keeping You from Starting Your Own Business"). However, this source does not appear to support the quoted sentence. It discusses marketing methods, not brainstorming. You should match the citation to the related content, or remove the citation entirely.
 * Not sure what you mean. The source says: "hosted dinner parties at her house and conducted brainstorming sessions with guests. The guests included business executives, market researchers, marketing consultants, the chief financial officer of a major company, an FDA regulatory attorney and others." CorporateM (Talk) 12:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Your quote is coming from page 106. However, the citation explicitly refers to page 26, which is where I looked first. Could you please change the page number and the URL on the citation? Edge3 (talk) 22:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, I retract my previous suggestion, since I got the two sources confused. It seems that your main source is not "The Truth About Starting a Business", but rather "What's Stopping You?" Please identify the correct citation, provide the right page number, and update the URL. I personally don't think that you need to keep both citations, since one should suffice. However, let me know if you strongly feel that you need to keep both. Edge3 (talk) 04:14, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Nice catch. Although only one source is needed, I think both sources provide context and justify the weight. But it's not really important... CorporateM (Talk) 04:22, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Nice catch. Although only one source is needed, I think both sources provide context and justify the weight. But it's not really important... CorporateM (Talk) 04:22, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The sentence ending with "...before Guthy-Renker agreed to market it in 1995" has a citation to the source titled "The Best-Selling Proactiv Celebrity All-Stars". Again, the statement is not supported by the given source.
 * ✅ Looks like an infotainment-type source anyway CorporateM (Talk) 12:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * A lot of the "History" section discusses marketing strategies, but I think it might be appropriate to move it to the "Marketing" section. What do you think?
 * Yes, I think John Broughton had mentioned this as well, and I just hadn't gotten to it yet. CorporateM (Talk) 12:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What is John Broughton's role in this article? I see no record of him ever reviewing this page, either for GAN or any other review process. Am I missing something? Edge3 (talk) 04:14, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I edited the article (twice) on September 16, and also posted this comment on my user talk page, where CorporateM and I were discussing the article. (We were discussing another article as well, earlier, so the section title, on my user talk page, doesn't happen to be "Proactiv" or similar, but the comment is in fact about the Proactiv article.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:36, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for directing me to the discussion on your talk page. I agree that this article needs more reorganizing, although I am glad that CorporateM has moved marketing information away from the "History" section. I hadn't considered recommending a "Sales" section, but I agree that this would be a good section to add. However, I don't agree that the GAN can fail solely on the basis of length. Even shorter articles can still become a GA, as long as they meet the criteria. Thanks! Edge3 (talk) 22:21, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for directing me to the discussion on your talk page. I agree that this article needs more reorganizing, although I am glad that CorporateM has moved marketing information away from the "History" section. I hadn't considered recommending a "Sales" section, but I agree that this would be a good section to add. However, I don't agree that the GAN can fail solely on the basis of length. Even shorter articles can still become a GA, as long as they meet the criteria. Thanks! Edge3 (talk) 22:21, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Regarding the following sentence: "The first Proactiv infomercials aired that year with celebrity endorser Judith Light." One of the sources is the Walker article titled "The Celebrity Solution", but that article doesn't mention Judith Light.


 * I can't access the following source or find it online. Are you able to access it? If so, how?: "Steinberg, BrianView (April 18, 2007), "Marketing Success Of Proactiv Leads To New Directions", The Wall Street Journal, retrieved January 4, 2012"
 * Here is the full-text of the source. We should delete it once you've had a chance to take a look for copyright reasons.

[Copyrighted material removed]


 * Thanks. Based on the text you have provided, here are my comments:
 * "The Proactiv brand is owned by its founders, but marketed and distributed by Guthy-Renker." I couldn't find any mention of "ownership" in either of the sources. Did I miss it? Ownership of a brand could be a very precise legal concept that isn't well captured in the sources.
 * On a related note, in what way is this source relevant to the sentence quoted above?
 * The Forbes post says "developed in 1995 by Stanford educated dermatologists Katie Rodan and Kathy Fields and marketed by Guthy Renker.... Guthy-Renker, the direct marketing giant who manages Proactiv..." and the full-text source above says "Guthy-Renker... has the exclusive license to market and distribute Proactiv on behalf of the product's dermatologist creators." Neither source explicitly mentions ownership though. I'll figure out a better way to put this. CorporateM (Talk) 19:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "In 2007, Proactiv experimented with two-minute advertisements..." The Wall Street Journal source does not support this statement. The interviewer mentioned that as of 2007, the company had already been doing direct-response ads that were two minutes long, along with the traditional half-hour infomercial. In 2007, they were considering adopting the more traditional 30-second primetime ads.
 * ✅ Is what I did ok? I just took out the reference to 2007, since the source doesn't mention when it was started and I removed the reference to it being an experiment. CorporateM (Talk) 19:32, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Is what I did ok? I just took out the reference to 2007, since the source doesn't mention when it was started and I removed the reference to it being an experiment. CorporateM (Talk) 19:32, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Once you're done with these revisions, you can remove the copied news source. Edge3 (talk) 22:39, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * For the following sentence: "in May 2010, the company tried 30-second network television ads."
 * The first word, "in", needs to be capitalized.


 * The source doesn't seem to explicitly mention 30-second ads, but maybe I missed it?

Looking forward to more edits. Edge3 (talk) 02:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The source has more details on Guthy-Renker's experimentation with different marketing strategies. I think they can be included in this article, perhaps in the Marketing section.

Upon further review, it seems that the article currently has many citation issues. A few more examples:
 * For the sentence: "In 2010, Proactiv signed celebrity endorsement contracts with Katy Perry, Avril Lavigne, Jenna Fischer, Justin Bieber and tennis player Caroline Wozniacki."


 * The following source appears irrelevant to Wozniacki's involvement: Netherby, Jennifer (August 28, 2010). "From Katy Perry to Justin Bieber, Proactiv Breaks out Musicians as Spokesmodels". Billboard.
 * I put it there as a citation for the entire sentence, because it includes numerous of the celebrities mentioned and is then complimented by other sources. Maybe there is another way to make it more clear though? CorporateM (Talk) 13:13, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * On a different note, it's inconsistent to point out that Wozniacki is a tennis player, while the occupations of Perry, Lavigne, Fisher, and Bieber are not mentioned.


 * "Proactiv also modified its formula with smaller benzoyl peroxide crystals and changed the packaging"
 * First of all, this statement on the product's formula does not appear to fit with the rest of the paragraph, which discusses marketing.
 * The following source appears to be irrelevant: Brown, Rachel (January 13, 2010). "Perry Fischer, Lavigne Tapped For Proactiv". Vol. 199, Issue 8 (Women's Wear Daily).
 * Here's what's in the source: Proactiv's packaging has been modified to give a “clearer picture of the brand on the bottles,” according to Van de Bunt. Inside the bottles, Proactiv's key ingredient — benzoyl peroxide — has been refined into microcrystals designed to quickly enter pores. Select Proactiv products will also be recommended for different skin types, and Proactiv skin care advisers will offer 24-hour product guidance starting Jan. 29. It might be worthwhile for us to make some tweaks though. CorporateM (Talk) 13:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll stop here for now. Please fix the citation issues that I mentioned, and all other citation issues in the article. Thanks, Edge3 (talk) 04:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I posted a few replies above. Question marks are attached to suggestions that you have not yet responded to.

Regarding your revised "Marketing" section:
 * "$200 million is spent on commercial air-time,[27] and $100 million in traditional marketing."
 * The distinction between commercial air-time and traditional marketing is unclear. Does traditional marketing overlap with commercial air-time, or are they separate marketing methods?
 * The statement seems to advance the conclusion that Proactive is spending a total of $300 million on marketing methods not including celebrity endorsements. Even if this isn't true, we should try to avoid WP:SYNTHESIS as much as possible.
 * The source says that $100 million is spent on traditional marketing for Proactive and the company's other products. It is not spent on Proactive only.
 * The source tells us that "the guiding philosophy behind the endorsements is that Proactiv spends less on branding by signing an instantly recognizeable celebrity than it would on billboards and commercials". However, the statistics you provide show us that Proactive is spending much more on commercial air-time and traditional marketing than it does on celebrity endorsements.
 * ✅ Removed the ambiguous reference. The celebrities are a small dollar amount, but big on weight in the source material. CorporateM (Talk) 04:11, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Edge3 (talk) 04:14, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Yah, a couple things I still need to do some digging for. I didn't notice the "and other products bit" My inclination would be to just take it out. I was also thinking that the item about benzoyl peroxide "crystals" that enter pores more quickly may be a medical claim and the marketing section talks about the product's decline due to competition, but not its rise.


 * I've been working on the Ron Burkle article off-wiki in my COI role and my brain is mush right now from reading 70+ citations, but I should be able to get some of the items that require more research early next week at the latest. CorporateM (Talk) 04:38, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries. I think it might be easier if I continue the review this weekend, so that you can address my comments all at once when you're ready next week. Edge3 (talk) 13:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "The New York Time said 'The overall tone walks a line between sympathy for those with acne and something closer to a call to action against a debilitating societal crisis.'"
 * The publication is The New York Times, with an "s" at the end.
 * A comma is needed after "said", and before the quotation.
 * I'm not convinced that this quote is necessary in the article, and I think that you could use your own words to better convey what the source says. What is the "societal crisis"? What role do the celebrities play in the "call to action"?
 * ✅ Yes, quotes are a good placeholder, but IMO they are usually used to add editorializing or POV that is not in-line with Wikipedia's desired tone. I re-wrote it, but I would be interested in your opinion on whether it should be removed entirely.


 * I think you can remove the following sentence: "In 2010, the company tried network television ads." It's already redundant with the previous paragraph, where you mention Proactiv's entry into traditional advertising in primetime TV.
 * Ok, I took a fresh look at the sources. Before that they were doing infomercials. That was when they started doing regular commercials. The article had an incorrect reference to the infomercials as commercials, which may be why it was confusing.


 * "As of 2010, the company had 1.5 million views on its YouTube channel, 41,000 Facebook fans, and 8,700 Twitter followers." Is this talking about Guthy-Renker or the product? The source seems to refer to the product, as opposed to the company.


 * "In 2011 Proactiv was one of nine companies that pulled advertising from the MTV show Skins,[36] after the Parents Television Council called for an investigation into whether the show violated child pornography laws." This seems unrelated to the celebrity endorsements that you mention in the same paragraph. Maybe you could move it elsewhere?
 * Well, the section is on "Marketing" not just the celebrity endorsements. Unless you wanted to create a separate section on Celebrity endorsements, or a sub-section. CorporateM (Talk) 01:33, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ It's in another paragraph now, which I think addresses it. I think that's what you mean, because the whole paragraph was devoted to the wave of celebrity endorsements.
 * Yes, I meant that you should move it to a different paragraph. Thanks for reorganizing. Edge3 (talk) 22:39, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "In December 2011, Naya Rivera from the TV show Glee became a Proactiv celebrity endorser. In August 2012, Kaley Cuoco from the TV show Big Bang Theory was recruited as a celebrity spokesperson." These sentences are repeating the same ideas, just for different actresses. I suggest that you merge these two statements. Edge3 (talk) 19:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Avril Lavigne is mentioned twice in the "Marketing" section. I recommend merging both instances.
 * ✅ though it needs some more copyediting now. Let me get back to this after other things are cleared up.


 * You previously mentioned reviewing your claims about benzoyl peroxide "crystals". I think that you should elaborate more on the active ingredients in the "Products" section. The article currently mentions benzoyl peroxide as the active ingredient, but this source notes that the UK version uses a different active ingredient, salicylic acid. The article should note the differences between Proactiv versions. Edge3 (talk) 00:34, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ I added the glycol acid bit from the UK formulation, though I don't know what else to say about the active ingredients. btw, do you agree with removing the "crystals" bit? Want to make sure I am not making bold edits where I have a COI. I think it may be a medical claim and having a PR background, I know that this kind of stuff is often made-up to create news where there is none. CorporateM (Talk) 01:12, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe the correct spelling is glycolic acid, not "glycol acid". Regardless, I think there might be some confusion in the article and in the sources. This source states that the active ingredient in the UK formulation is salicylic acid, and that the US formulation uses benzoyl peroxide. Another source is from the UK and mentions benzoyl peroxide and glycolic acid, but not salicylic acid. I think you should look for a more reliable source, and update the article accordingly. Edge3 (talk) 22:39, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As for your question about the benzoyl peroxide "crystals", I agree that it was a medical claim that should be supported by a better source. This is related to my other comments above, where I suggest using reliable medical sources to support claims about Proactiv's active ingredients. You made a good decision by removing the content. Edge3 (talk) 22:45, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm looking for a source about Guthy-Renker's Proactiv production facility (I remember seeing this somewhere) and will dig for that WSJ source. One of the common criticisms is that it uses the same active ingredients as cheaper, generic-store drugs. I came across this source where Guthy-Renker rebuffs the criticism with a point-of-view not currently included: “While the ingredients in Proactiv solution and other acne products may be similar, It’s the unique formulation, the manufacturing procedures and the process that activates the ingredients that make Proactiv distinctive and different.” Do you think that should be represented somehow?

Since it's a POV thing, rather than a copyedit, I won't make any changes myself, but it's something I noticed. CorporateM (Talk) 04:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think it will be appropriate to include Guthy-Renker's claim, since we would be "legitimizing" a statement that is not supported by the available literature. I think WP:GEVAL applies. Edge3 (talk) 03:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I am also concerned that Guthy-Renker wasn't specific about how Proactive is distinctive and different from its competitors. If they had given more details, then I might be inclined to include it. Edge3 (talk) 03:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks - sounds about right. CorporateM (Talk) 13:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Active ingredients
Proactiv's primary product is a three-part acne treatment kit that includes a cleanser, toner, and treatment. The kit's only active ingredient, benzoyl peroxide, is a common compound used for acne treatment that can cause skin irritation, sensitivity, or allergic reactions and discolors fabrics. The Proactiv cleanser and treatment each contain a 2.5 percent concentration, which can make users more comfortable using it daily when compared to most products that contain a 10 percent concentration. There is also an "Extra Strength" version with a 7 percent concentration and a "Gentle Formula" with a 2 percent concentration of salicylic acid. The toner contains witch hazel, which reduces facial oil, and glycolic acid, a popular ingredient in chemical peels. The kit is sold on a subscription basis. After the first 30 days, customers are automatically billed for a three-month supply every three months, until the subscription is cancelled.

There is also a Proactiv+ version that does not contain parabens and is intended to also act as a moisturizer. A five-product "Deluxe Kit" is sold as well as a "for teens" version and other skin-care products. There are also variations in the formulation and different active ingredients in other products. A Proactiv moisturizer uses Octinoxate (7.5%) and Zinc Oxide (3%), while a Proactiv-brand anti-dandruff shampoo uses a 1% concentration of Zinc Pyrithione.

Discussion
I was able to find extremely reliable sources confirming the active ingredients in the "main formulation", but could not reliably confirm variations in other countries. I notice that the more reliable sources, like The Daily Mail and the Advertising Standards Authority's ruling only say that the active ingredients are different, but don't confirm that the UK version uses salicylic acid specifically.

This source saying that it does use salicylic acid seems in-line with a lot of forums and blog posts saying that it does, however the ASA ruling also notes Proactiv saying that many of its products are identical in both countries. This entry in a database I found through the National Institutes of Health shows a version of the Toner with a salicylic acid, which conflicts with very reliable periodicals - it's possible that's "the UK version" but I also don't know if that is unique to the UK, or all of Europe, or what other versions may exist that were not involved in a controversy.

I think all I can say with confidence is "there are alternate formulations." CorporateM (Talk) 00:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I suppose you could simply state that an alternate formulation with salicylic acid is available in the UK -- it isn't necessarily the only formulation in the UK, and we can't definitively conclude that it's distribution is limited to the UK only. On a related note, were you able to find reliable sources confirming the ingredients in Proactiv+?
 * I got nothing. For what it's worth, the active ingredients are listed on the website here if you click on individual products. It has benzoyl peroxide (2.5%) and salycic acid. A primary source would be acceptable, but then Proactiv+ would need to become more notable to justify the detail I would think. CorporateM (Talk) 19:21, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As for your proposed text, I find no COI issue with it, so I have inserted it into the article. Please check to make sure that I pasted the content correctly. I will now proceed with my review of this section:
 * You note that the active ingredient - benzoyl peroxide - is a "common compound used for acne treatment", but you could go into more detail by discussing its chemical role. For example, Jessica Wu's source "Feed Your Face" mentions that it kills bacteria and is anti-inflammatory. Currently, the article text focuses too much on the side effects.
 * "There is also an "Extra Strength" version with a 7 percent concentration..." -- Is this referring to 7% benzoyl peroxide or salicylic acid? I ask only because even though the paragraph initially focused on benzoyl peroxide, salicylic acid is mentioned at the end of the sentence.
 * I couldn't find a "for teens" version sold on this source. Is it in there? Regardless, I don't think it's necessary to mention the Deluxe Kit and other combinations of the same products, since the sources have not considered them noteworthy.
 * "There are also variations in the formulation and different active ingredients in other products." I recommend changing this to something like: "Other products in the Proactiv line have different formulations and active ingredients."
 * Overall, your new content looks good, and is a huge improvement compared to the previous version! Edge3 (talk) 03:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "There are also variations in the formulation and different active ingredients in other products." I recommend changing this to something like: "Other products in the Proactiv line have different formulations and active ingredients."
 * Overall, your new content looks good, and is a huge improvement compared to the previous version! Edge3 (talk) 03:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Overall, your new content looks good, and is a huge improvement compared to the previous version! Edge3 (talk) 03:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Overall, your new content looks good, and is a huge improvement compared to the previous version! Edge3 (talk) 03:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Continuing review
Thanks for the edits. I've marked some questions above with a question mark if they have not yet been resolved. Could you please take a look at them and reply? Edge3 (talk) 18:56, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I think your responses are fine, and at this time I have no further comments on what I've posted above. I have been making some changes to the article, so please review them and let me know if you want to discuss them more.


 * One thing that the lead section doesn't address is the comparison between Proactiv and its cheaper competitors. I think that this topic is significant enough to be included in the lead. For example, the study by Consumer Reports found that the competing products were equally effective, while the Salon source noted that Proactiv's three-step process made it appealing to those who valued diligence. Edge3 (talk) 02:29, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It was actually a fairly simple change for me to make, so I've added the statement, in the hopes of balancing the lead section per WP:LEAD.
 * I'm almost done reviewing the rest of the article. I will post additional comments shortly. Edge3 (talk) 03:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, some potential copyedits:

An 80-person Consumer Reports study concluded that Proactiv was as not more effective as than cheaper drugstore products competitors.
 * Someone told me previously that when medical claims are supported by studies that include a small number of participants, we usually call it out.CorporateM (Talk) 03:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That's fine. I've implemented the change. Edge3 (talk) 03:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Final review
This review was a bit tricky, due to the COI declarations, but I think you handled my suggestions very well! Thank you for your efforts in this article.

I pass this article's GA nomination. Edge3 (talk) 04:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)