- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 19:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Toxic Beauty
... that Toxic Beauty explores how regulations for cosmetic products in the USA have not changed since the 1930s? Source: "Cosmetic regulations haven't been updated since the 1930s" [1]- ALT1:... that cosmetic products in the USA are not adequately protected from carcinogens and other toxic substances? Source: "the film explores the way in which other cosmetic products are made, with next to no regulation from the Food and Drug Administration" [2]
- QPQ: Template:Did you know nominations/Anatoliy Mokrenko
- Comment: Small and easy review
Created by RTG (talk). Self-nominated at 12:25, 19 April 2020 (UTC).
- I'm not sure what is going on with the username error... if someone can figure it out be much obliged, ~ R.T.G 12:31, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
- Fixed. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:46, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
would be happy to review this (if Medusa isn't) but first obvious problem is the orphan tag Kingoflettuce (talk) 14:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
- 2) Also not sure how RS Goop is 3) QPQ? Kingoflettuce (talk) 14:01, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
- I just reviewed Anatoliy Mokrenko, however, is the DYK bot removing the QPQ field? ~ R.T.G 14:17, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
- Goop is not listed at Wikipedia:Perennial sources. No I would not consider it reliable for any sort of scientific claims or anything like that but, I don't think Gwynneth has been straight up accused of lying about stuff like what is in a movie or what people are saying about things, more sort of stuff like, well I don't even want to mention the first dubious vagina based health claims that come to mind, but more sort of about dubious health claims. At the end of the day, the article can go without that bit. ~ R.T.G 14:31, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
- I just reviewed Anatoliy Mokrenko, however, is the DYK bot removing the QPQ field? ~ R.T.G 14:17, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
- 2) Also not sure how RS Goop is 3) QPQ? Kingoflettuce (talk) 14:01, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Kingoflettuce: Go for it. Also, see the note I have sent to the author of the article. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 14:21, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Quite unorthodox to place a generic makeup picture in the infobox rather than the poster, I think. Kingoflettuce (talk) 09:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Unlike Goop, IMDb is on the list, so something has to be done about that too.. Kingoflettuce (talk) 09:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
- Done and done. As for Goop, well they sell fanciful products. I don't subscribe to raging against the machine, but yes, the issue with Goop is that it is promotional first, which Paltrow herself has indirectly but clearly inferred. I used it because it claimed the director draws a link to marketing practices, that African American women experience higher levels of certain forms of hormonal illness, taken for granted to be a racial difference, which is known to be possible, however, they are targeted by marketing, for their racially nice hair, and they do experience, according to all this, a slightly higher percentage of certain hormonal illness in line with what the documentary is complaining about... And the other sources don't say it. So it's really the only reason I am trying to use that... ~ R.T.G 14:22, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Ok all seems set now 
Earwig found no likely copyvio, new and long enough, an interesting hook, article is fairly neutrally-worded. Cheers! Kingoflettuce (talk) 15:03, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
- I've added a movie poster and section headings. A bit late, but I was sure it would need an effort to reorder, it didn't though. It's just got headings, shouldn't change anything except making it an easier read, apologies and thanks o/ ~ R.T.G 15:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
- Um, the headers a re a tad unorthodox, but I suspect that's more a style thing that won't really fall into DYK criteria Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:42, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I came by to promote ALT1, but we should not be stating this as a fact in Wikipedia's voice. Could you reword the hook with something like: ... that according to the documentary Toxic Beauty
? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 17:59, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
- ALT2... that according to Toxic Beauty, certain uses of Johnson & Johnsons baby talc may cause ovarian cancer?
- @Yoninah: I've updated the article to support alt 2. Sure, if that's the fact and that's what the documentary is about, probably best to try and spread the word. ~ R.T.G 18:34, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
@RTG: Whoa, I don't want to go into that minefield. I was happy with ALT1, just with a tweak. This alt also needs a proper cite:- ALT1a: ... that according to the 2019 documentary Toxic Beauty, cosmetic products in the US are not adequately protected from carcinogenic and hormone-disrupting chemicals?
- I copyedited the article. Rotten Tomatoes is not enough for the Critical Reception section IMO; if you don't have other reviews, just delete it. Yoninah (talk) 20:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
- "Toxic Beauty zeroes in on the research behind parabens (a class of preservatives) and phthalates (plasticizers commonly found in fragrances). Both are considered endocrine disruptors, or chemicals that mimic hormones, which may lead to hormonal imbalance, infertility, sperm damage, early puberty, and even hormone-related cancers, like breast cancer."[3]
- About Rotten Tomatoes... if I quote some of the reviews it is improved, right? ~ R.T.G 04:15, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- Critical reviews from reliable sources, not random reviewers, would help. Also, is it necessary to quote those statistics about J&J in the lead? I'm not sure what the damages figure has to do with anything. Yoninah (talk) 11:07, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- Here is what I think in terms of hookiness. The test case was 22 cases and they were awarded something like 150 million average, which adds up to that figure. The following suit has 11,700 claimants. That's like over 1.5 trillion, or 20 years of present day profits, but it isn't the figures. On one side, J&J is like Coca Cola in terms of a marketing brand, worldwide American industrial pride. Then on the other side, which is more important, talcum powder is not safe in the long term for female use. It is a mined mineral product. Just like gold occurs naturally near quartz, asbestos is found in talc. It is knowledge of the issue with talc which seems the most important. Yes, it is the most awkward issue ever, genitals, and personal cleanliness... but I think it is most concerned with where someone puts talc on their vagina every day for many years... Maybe we should try to say that more directly... ~ R.T.G 16:53, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- Isn't this a documentary film? Don't we have other articles that talk about the J&J lawsuits? I think your job in this article is to focus on the documentary film, its contents, production, release, and reception. Yoninah (talk) 19:16, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- Um, the headers a re a tad unorthodox, but I suspect that's more a style thing that won't really fall into DYK criteria Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:42, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
- I've added a movie poster and section headings. A bit late, but I was sure it would need an effort to reorder, it didn't though. It's just got headings, shouldn't change anything except making it an easier read, apologies and thanks o/ ~ R.T.G 15:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
@RTG: thank you. Could you just do something about this run-on sentence?
The film interviews doctors, lawyers, and scientists, explores how products are made, and compares a recent surge in litigation against Johnson & Johnson to decades of public pressure for reforms against the tobacco industry in the 1960s with claims that tens of thousands of dangerous chemicals are unregulated in popular cosmetic products in the USA without adequate regulation such as an appropriate warning on the label, even when toxic substances have been identified in products as far back as the 60s as legislation has not had a relevant change since the 1930s in favor of a "postmarket regulatory system", even though the act has been updated to cover similar issues in food and drugs.