Talk:The Honest Company

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Presto25.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:11, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

CSD
The public log shows one action:
 * 05:15, 15 October 2014 deleted page The Honest Company (A7: No explanation of significance (real person/animal/organization/web content/organized event))

sunscreen reformulation controversy
Please add information about the public and media controversy about the sunscreen, after reformulation at the beginning of 2015, reducing the non-nano zinc oxide from 20 to 9.3 percent. There is a thoughtful detailed analysis here: that explains the reformulation was probably in response to complaints about the thick and greasy feel of the older (apparently more effective) formulation. It remains unclear what was added to the new version that is supposed to make up for the reduction in zinc oxide.-96.233.20.34 (talk) 13:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * www.forbes.com/sites/davidkroll/2015/08/03/the-failure-of-jessica-albas-honest-company-sunscreen-explained/
 * I have added content with the WP:RS you suggested as a WP:IC. I don't think that a lot of detail is necessary in the article however.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

statement in history section
"The company has broken this promise." Added citation needed, but why is this even here? It's a completely useless statement without more information to back it up. Actually, removing it, because apparently it's been removed before and keeps getting replaced by people who don't understand things like "facts" and "sources". Nosax (talk) 02:40, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I replaced it. The citation is lower down, see the entire controversy section but particularly, the bit about SLS. --Yamla (talk) 12:41, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Specifically, it's incredibly relevant. The company is called the "Honest" company. It made promises. It broke those promises. It directly relates to the very core of the company. --Yamla (talk) 12:45, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Like an Ad?
I have read through this, and I can understand why it was labeled, before certain edits were made, but once the wording was changed, the article as it clearly stands, clearly isn't an ad. Could explain the logic here? Also "The company has a strong charitable mission that has been likened to Toms Shoes, Warby Parker, and Etsy. It donates products, revenues, and labor. " should not have been deleted in my opinion as INC and WSJ are respected sources.. Sucker for All (talk) 11:32, 19 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I removed the most egregious promotional content, so you're right, the advert template may no longer be appropriate. But the tone still seems overly positive and uncritical in some spots where I'd expect a more balanced tone. Maybe I'll have time to go through and edit some more soon.


 * For the passage you mentioned, I wouldn't oppose including it as long as we remove the WP:PEACOCK word "strong". Benny White (talk) 16:52, 19 October 2021 (UTC)