Jump to content

Talk:GU Energy Labs/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: CorporateM (talk · contribs) 15:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Top-down[edit]

This being my first time conducting a GA review rather than submitting one, I'd like to take a look at the article working from the top-down, then check it more closely against the GA criteria. CorporateM (Talk) 15:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your time and assistance! --Another Believer (Talk) 15:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox[edit]

  • I noticed the infobox has a citation for number of employees, but not for its current president, headquarters and founder. CorporateM (Talk) 15:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I thought including references within the lead or infobox is discouraged as long as inline citations are provided in the prose (which they are). --Another Believer (Talk) 15:28, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I actually prefer not having cites in the infobox, but brought it up for consistencies sake. 50 employees is also cited in the body, so you could also just remove that cite from the infobox to make the infobox consistent CorporateM (Talk) 15:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you think we need to list the products individually rather than more generally like "energy drinks"? It's fairly long for an infobox parameter. CorporateM (Talk) 15:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not opposed. I guess I thought more detail was helpful, as their product line is not as simple as "energy drinks". They produce gels, drinks, tablets, etc., so perhaps something like "Sports nutrition products" is more appropriate? --Another Believer (Talk) 15:28, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's up to you. Generally speaking any long list of individual products starts creeping on NOT a product directly. You could also do something like Brew Drinks, Energy Drinks, Energy Gels, or just Sports nutrition products would also work. CorporateM (Talk) 15:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I already wrote out what I thought was appropriate, but if you think less specificity is better, I can do as you have suggested. I don't feel strongly either way. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

History[edit]

  • "According to the company, its mission is "to help athletes go faster and longer than ever before".[9]" Maybe this could be written in a more neutral way in the Products section, without quoting their promotional mission statement directly. CorporateM (Talk) 15:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm, when it comes to mission statements, I am more inclined to pull a direct quote. I included "according to the company" so readers knew this was being pulled directly from company resources. Is it necessary to question neutrality when it is obvious that this is a company mission? (Not opposed to your suggestion entirely, but just explaining my thinking.) --Another Believer (Talk) 15:42, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Including the company mission statement is itself promotional, unless it has been published and analyzed in reliable secondary sources. Although it is also acceptable to include it in the infobox if you are using a template with a parameter for it. I meant something more like "Its products are intended to increase the endurance of athletes". This seems to be an important premise for this article. A secondary source would be better for it though if one exists. CorporateM (Talk) 16:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some suggested trimming - I don't think we usually include the exact address: "In June 2011, GU moved its corporate operations and 50 employees from a 13,000-square-foot (1,200 m2) space at 1204 Tenth Street to one with twice as much floor space.[1][10] Located in Berkeley's 4th Street shopping district, the space was formerly occupied by Clif Bar, another sports nutrition company.[10] The larger, 26,000-square-foot (2,400 m2) space, located at 1609 Fourth Street, affords the company an increased production capacity, with room for additional growth.[1][10] CorporateM (Talk) 15:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. Personally, I thought it was interesting that the space was formerly occupied by Clif Bar, but perhaps that detail is not necessary. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, I returned the bit about the office being located in Berkeley's 4th Street shopping district, but trimmed the rest. Seems appropriate to me, yes? --Another Believer (Talk) 15:55, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to the company, its products are intended to increase the endurance of athletes.[8]" - because this is referring to the product's "intentions" it probably does not require attribution (ie "according to the company"). It also might be better placed in the Products section CorporateM (Talk) 20:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "marked the first time" makes it sound a bit dramatic and could probably use toning down/copyediting. CorporateM (Talk) 20:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to "'s 2011 relocation was the first time in five years...". Is that proper grammar? --Another Believer (Talk) 20:28, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "History of energy gels" - it doesn't look like any of the sources are about GU Energy Labs, rather than about energy gels in general. This might be better as a See also link to the Wiki page on energy gels. CorporateM (Talk) 20:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, one of the sources is about the company. I thought the section provided a bit of context, such as the fact that GU did not invent energy gels, but are considered the first major distributor. Also, I thought the GU vs. "goo" bit was helpful. I don't feel strongly, though, that this information should live in its own section. What about combining the first two sections? Personally, I like the flow of this, but I am not the reviewer! :) --Another Believer (Talk) 20:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Products[edit]

  • While neutrally-written, the section relies much too heavily on primary sources. It needs to be trimmed down to get it to a point where most of the information is from independent secondary sources, and maybe it just uses a primary sources once or twice. CorporateM (Talk) 15:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if you prefer being a "hands on" or a "hands off" reviewer (I've encountered both!) but any assistance with trimming here would be appreciated. I am pleased to hear neutrality is not a concern, but part of me feels this is because the statements being made are very general. The purpose is just to confirm products created, not promote them. There are plenty of articles that discuss GU's products generally, and some even list flavors, but I wanted to use the company's site to verify all flavors and even nutritional composition. I did, however, remove the bits about the caloric values and recommended consumption practices. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So we need a source to verify that the company produces "GU Energy Gel, GU Chomps (energy chews), drink mixes (branded as "Brews"), and a line of Roctane Ultra Endurance products", but not the company website? --Another Believer (Talk) 20:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Preferably an independent secondary sources summarizes their products in a way that would indicate which are significant, etc.; a primary source might do, but it would be better to just cite the company website than have 4 cites to various press releases in that case. CorporateM (Talk) 20:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

  • I think it would be good if this article had an image of some sort, either of the office or one of its products, perhaps. I found an image at Flickr, but I am not sure if an image that shows branding or packaging like this is allowed. Do you know? --Another Believer (Talk) 15:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is allowed so long as the branding/packaging is provided within some context. If the image shows only the packaging, than it becomes more of a trademark issue. However, I think it would be even better if you own any GU Energy Labs products, if you could open the package and take photos of the product itself. An image of their corporate offices, even if just from the outside, if often added to the infobox and is also a good image. CorporateM (Talk) 15:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I don't have access to the office or products (unless I go buy some...), but I will keep searching! --Another Believer (Talk) 15:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit: Clearly, this company sponsors a lot of events, as evidenced by the many sources proving this. Yes, many of these sources are primary (official event websites), but does that really warrant the removal of this section in its entirety? I am not going to fight hard for its inclusion, but it does seem like some aspect of the article is missing if we are removing an entire branch of this company's activity. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I could see something like "The company sponsors 30 triathlon, swimming, biking, running and outdoor athletes in order to promote its products.[1] CorporateM (Talk) 16:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not trying to be resistant here, but I re-drafted a section about Sponsorships, constructed from mostly non-GU sources. Perhaps I should have placed the text here beforehand... either way, I am totally open to suggestions, I just thought this was helpful information about the company. I am not sure how else to source a general comment like "The company sponsors 30 triathlon, swimming, biking, running and outdoor athletes", without providing some concrete examples. Completely open to making necessary changes, but had to start somewhere... --Another Believer (Talk) 17:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not GA at this time[edit]

The current version of the article relies extremely heavily on press releases, the company website and other low-quality sources as citations. While primary sources are not forbidden, and our expectations for sourcing are a little lower on a marginally notable company, the article should rely primarily on reliable, independent sources. I've started looking through the sources below. CorporateM (Talk) 23:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. Does not mention GU Energy Labs
2. Is an interview and therefore should be used with caution
3. Does not mention GU Energy Labs
4. Is a good source for its use, albeit a brief mention.
5. Is a press release
6. Is a press release
7. Looks like a good source
8. A brief mention, but acceptable for its use
9. Is a blurb, but acceptable for its use
10. The company website
11. The company website
12. Although it is a brief mention, NPR provides a strong secondary source for a product description "which makes gels that blend carbohydrates, amino acids, electrolytes and caffeine." Something similar to that should work ok here.
13. More content from this source should be included: "the reaction was mixed-to-positive – some who took the Tri-Berry flavour felt that they had a more prolonged spell of energy, whilst those who took the Mandarin Orange didn’t feel an affect...I certainly felt as if my focus was higher. Interestingly, this followed me taking the only flavour without caffeine. And whilst I didn’t feel a huge spurt of energy"
14. Looks like an acceptable source, but also has more content that could be added to the article: "If you are familiar with GU products, you may agree with me when I describe the texture as almost frosting-like. I found that the flavor really did taste like a light peppermint frosting, yet was not too overpowering (nagging question from my run: Is it a good thing or a bad thing to be thinking about cupcakes when running?). I find some of the flavors of GU hit-or-miss at times, but this flavor was definitely a bulls-eye for me. Enough so that I may loading up a couple for the Foot Traffic Flat Marathon in July, seasonal tastes be darned. "
16. A brief mention but fine for its use
17. The company website
18. The company website
19. The company website
20. The company website
21. The company website
22. The company website
23. The company website

Out of the first 23 citations, only about 8-10 of them warrant inclusion and many of the sources that do warrant inclusion do not have the main premise of the article (product reviews) included. CorporateM (Talk) 23:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, well, this is surprising to me (this might actually be my first GAN fail!), but certainly I respect your decision. I had hope the article would be promoted, but you have much more experience with company articles and I trust your judgment. I don't really plan on working on the article much more, though I am sure there are other sources out there that could be incorporated. Thank you for taking time to review this article. --Another Believer (Talk) 00:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:GU_Energy_Labs/GA1&oldid=1030711845"