User talk:Solarys-fr/Activia

Some comments

I renamed [1] in a more appropriate way ("Communication" just would not do it. Let's call issues for what they are).

I have several issues with the beginning of this section The US FDA pressed charges for false advertising, despite the fact that Activia's claims were backed by 17 scientific studies[46].

First, the source (46) is clearly an error. It refers to a launch in Australia rather than a claim issue. It should be removed.

The mention of the 17 scientific studies is interesting but should be properly sourced.

The sentence is so written that I feel vaguely a POV toward Activia. "despite" and "backed by" seem to imply that US FDA was wrong in pressing charges.

Litigation

either merge the class action and the litigation in the USA in one paragraph or indicate time period.

Communication

you might add more about their new handle in terms of communication (plaisir)

Introduction

I actually prefer the current article sentence to refer to probiotics: Activia products contain Bifidobacterium animalis DN 173 010, a proprietary strain of Bifidobacterium, a probiotic which is marketed by Dannon under the trade names Bifidus Regularis, Bifidus Actiregularis, Bifidus Digestivum and Bifidobacterium Lactis. than the one you chose Indeed, a proprietary probiotic culture called Bifidobacterium animalis DN-173 010, trademarked as Bifidus regularis is added to all Activia products[2]. English guys prefer direct language.

the source you used (#2) is weird as it does address a litigation claim whilst the fact is more scientific in nature. I would suggest you replace this source with a source with scientific data at that point.

the source #1 is a little bit weird as well. The source is meant to support Activia is classified as a functional food, designed to improve digestive health. I would rather expect a link to a rather official food database showing the classification of the product. Or perhaps directly a Danone page.

To make it simple, in the introduction, there are essentially FOUR points. Point 1: it is classified as a functional food. Point 2: it includes bacterial strains. 3. It claims to help bowel functioning. 4. There was some litigation. As a consequence, we would rather expect 4 different types of source. Source 1: a source that shows it is a functional food (Danone source or food database source). Source 2: food science source. Source 3: scientific studies source. Source 4: strong media report or official legal outcomes (several sources are ok). As it is right now, sources are not satisfactory imho. I would suggest that it is particularly important to be super focused with sources in the introduction :)

Anthere (talk) 15:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Additional comments

1. In the lead section, "As of 2013, Activia is present in more than 70 countries and on all 5 continents" should just be "Activa is sold in more than 70 countries". (Text like "on all five continents" is classic marketing filler; there is nothing unusual about a product - these days - being sold worldwide.)

2. The following text doesn't belong in the lead section (see WP:LEAD) - it's not a summary, it's not directly about the subject itself (it's about probiotics in general), and it's not neutral (it's marketing). I'm not sure if this text actually belongs anywhere other than in the probiotics article itself (if not already there). We have links in Wikipedia articles to other articles precisely so that those who know what a word means don't have to read an explanation, while those who don't know can follow the (wiki)link.

According to the WHO, probiotics are live microorganisms that, when consumed in sufficient quantity, provide a health benefit beyond that of basic nutrition. Probiotics play a positive role in reducing infections, regulating cholesterol levels and high blood pressure, stimulating digestive health, preventing obesity[4]...

3. Section heading: "The beginning of the research on bifidus" should just be "Initial research on bifidus".

4. Almost everything in the "Products" section should be deleted. Per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a directory, and not an indiscriminate collection of information. This section is also a violation of WP:UNDUE - it takes up far more space than is justified. Most of the content isn't supported by citations. And it's impossible to maintain (keep complete and accurate). What would be interesting to the reader would be a list of different styles of Activia - a subsection on main styles, another on unusual styles (e.g., lactose free), and a third on unusual flavors.

5. Market: "In 2006, consumers ate 185 cups of Activia yogurt every second" may be properly sourced (I've not looked) but it's the sort of thing that comes directly from marketing departments. Recommend deleting. Similarly, this is the way marketers talk: "In 2006, Activia sales reached $130 million, in the US alone." Here's what it should be (if included at all; see WP:NOT): "In 2006, Activia sales in the U.S. were $130 million." And again: "Activia is a more than 2 billion-dollar brand which owes its success to the health benefit claim." That doesn't belong in "Market", it belongs - probably - as the first sentence in the section "Debates surrounding health claims on probiotic foods". (In general, this section seems to be a collection of loose facts; the sales figures aren't consistently stated (dollars, euros); the section heading "Market" - again, a PR term - should be "Sales". And I don't understand why it has one subsection - there should be either two, or none, but the information in the first part of the section overlaps that of the subsection, implying that the subsection heading should be removed.)

6. The entire "Innovation" section is pure marketing - it should be removed. (Reference 43, to Business Wire, is using a press release - that's unacceptable, since it's essentially self-published (see WP:RS.

7. Everything in "Communication" belongs in the next section, "Debates surrounding health claims on probiotic foods" (and the text "on probiotic foods" should be dropped from the section heading).

8. Controversies: Wikipedia articles typically list things in chronological order. Thus the "Litigation in 2010" section should be after the "Class action in 2008-2009".

9. Reference 3 is a press release; reference 12 is self-published; reference 14 is not a reliable source, references 15 and 19 are the same (use the "name=" feature of footnotes, as with footnote 72); references 20-24 and 26-27 are not usable as citations (self-published); reference 30 is incomplete (the article is actually dated July 3, 2008, not "July 2008", and it has an author - Lauren Sandler); 34 and 36 are the same (there are more cases; I'm going to stop listing now); references 40 and 41 do not have a complete date (need the day of month, not just the month, and add author if articles are bylined) [and there are more; I'm going to stop listing them, since it should be obvious which other ones have this problem]; reference 46 is a press release; reference 49 and 30 are the same, but 49 uses the subtitle only; and 71, also the same citation, uses both); for footnote 72, I have objections to including article text in the footnote [in my opinion, this should be done only if the actual text is controversial]

10 External links - the first should be removed because (as noted above) it's unreliable. (Even if it was reliable, it shouldn't be linked because the source is already cited in a footnote - see WP:EL).

-- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:18, 13 April 2013 (UTC)