Wikipedia:Peer review/Pillow Pets/archive2

Pillow Pets

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has already been under extensive copyediting from me and other users. However, I don't think that the article is good to go for GA status, so I will need a reviewer's opinions on the article.

Thanks, Bulldog73 ^talk da contribs _{go rando} 06:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jappalang

The most obvious issue I see with this article is that "Pillow Pets" is not solely in the providence of Ms Telfer's invention. The concept (and name) was already bandied around in 1967,[1] and several companies have registered such a toy line and brand/trademark as early as 1968 (evidenced through Books Google and a search on US Copyright Office). This article makes it seem as if the toy is unique and first invented by Telfer, which is not the case; it thus would fail GA criteria's of broad coverage and FA's criteria of comprehensiveness. The surrender of the trademark by the other companies (thus allowing Telfer to take over) does not excuse the failure to note that the concept of stuffed animal pillows already existed.
Telfer's Pillow Pets are selling really well, and almost no one knows of the fact that the idea of a stuffed toy pillow came even before that. I can't see why anyone read about how Telfer was not the first to come up with stuffed toy pillows. That is to say, a user by the name of Plushinfo made an edit relating to this issue, but I reverted it saying that it was "not appropriate for an encyclopedia." Bulldog73 ^talk da contribs _{go rando} 20:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the Google Books link provided. There are reviews of those earlier products. They are not non-notable items. The Pillow Pets by Dakin is still flourishing as a trade among collectors.[2] The current media focus on Telfer's product might be a result of Wikipedia:Recentism. We would not know what would happen another five or ten years down the line (nor should we speculate on that), but writing an encyclopaedic article involves looking in the long-term and in a neutral light. "I can't see why anyone read about how Telfer was not the first to come up with stuffed toy pillows.": refer to the article's first paragraph; "inspired her idea of making stuffed toys functional ... [Telfer:] 'where I came with the concept that "What if we can make stuffed animals functional?"' ... she decided on a combination of a pillow and a stuffed animal to have the concept for Pillow Pets. ... the Telfers were prepared to sell the first Pillow Pets." pretty much asserts that sort of thought (that the Telfers made the first stuffed animal pillows). Jappalang (talk) 01:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I question the compliance with WP:NFCC of File:Pillow Pets.jpg and File:Pillow Pet Dog.jpg. The first does not really serve to help me further understand the subject; thus, in my view, the file fails criterion 8 in any sense. The second image is a much better illustration than a logo, showing what the toy is and would be a better identifying image. However, I think an image that shows the defining features of the toy, such as those shown here (heh, did not notice but apparently this image is from a Chinese "competitor", but still it illustrates the principle of what is intended...) and here, would be better choices.
The first image is the Pillow Pets logo. What's wrong with that? Bulldog73 ^talk da contribs _{go rando} 20:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-free images is that they are to be used only if they help readers to further understand the subject (NFCC #8); if a single non-free item is an equivalent or better aid than two, then that single item should be used (NFCC #3a). The logo does not really help much, especially since nothing much is discussed about it and people recognize the toy(s) more than the logo image. Jappalang (talk) 01:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Donating" is not a good word choice for the section title. "Donations" or "Charity work" would be better. Even so, "Pillow Pets is also known for their charity work, ..." is gramatically incorrect (inconsistency between tense and pronoun) and seems wrongly phrased. A toy does not do "charity work", its maker or its buyer does.
Changed heading to "Charity work" and changed "Pillow Pets" to "CJ Products", used correct tense. Bulldog73 ^talk da contribs _{go rando} 20:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The resultant "CJ Products are known for their charity work, with both United States citizens and CJ Products donating Pillow Pets for many causes." still does not quite gel. The donation of the toys by United States citizens is not the toymaker's action; it is wrong to attribute the citizens' goodwill to the toymaker. Jappalang (talk) 01:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"CJ Products are known for their charity work, as they have donated Pillow Pets for many causes. In addition to CJ Products, citizens of the United States have also donated Pillow Pets to help others." How does that float your boat? Bulldog73 ^talk da contribs _{go rando} 02:58, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"CJ Products are known for their charity work" is very doubtful to me when the sources in Direct do not actually state such a thing. One source is by the company itself, talking about what they will do; the other is a press release that talks mostly about Family Reach and says nothing about My Pillow Pets as known for charity works. Even the sources in Indirect do not support such a notion. As such the statement that the company is known for such acts comes across as original research and should be removed unless cited to sources that explicitly back up the idea. Jappalang (talk) 01:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~"Fraud" is also a bad choice. Ambiguously, it can imply that the section has some content of fraud by the toymaker (not what is decribed). "Copycats" or "Counterfeits" would be better titles.~~
Changed to "Counterfeits." Bulldog73 ^talk da contribs _{go rando} 20:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that the biggest flaw of this article at this time is the exclusion of the toy's history (not of My Pillow Pet, but of the concept of stuffed animal pillows). Jappalang (talk) 01:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: As requested, here are some comments and more suggestions for improvement. I agree with Jappalang's comments above. Thanks for your work on this.

A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are several GAs on toys at Category:GA-Class Toys articles
I do not think the lead follows WP:LEAD - the lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but I do not see anything on awards in the lead.
The word fraudulent is still used in the lead - I would change it to counterfeit here too.
Make sure the company is referred to as CJ Products, and not Pillow Pets throughout the article.
Similarly, since their official name seems to be "My Pillow Pets", this should be in the lead too (and not just in the infobox)
Language is clunky - Citizens of the United States, and the Pillow Pets company themselves, have donated Pillow Pets to help others in need. Or which gender Telfer is referred to here? Telfer stated in an interview with CNBC that the fact that his oldest son, then 7, would flatten one of his stuffed animals out like a pillow inspired her idea of making stuffed toys functional:... ("his oldest son", but "her idea")
Re-branded to me sounds like they are moving completely awy from their current business model - sounds like they are just adding a high end version On February 11, 2011, CJ Products announced that Pillow Pets will be re-branded into Pillow Pets Premium, for specialty retail stores.
Try to keep the focus on the toys themselves - why does the reader need to know what this woman does for a living? In December 2010, Michele McFarland, ~~a human resources worker for the Baltimore County Department of Social Services~~, and her family, all from Catonsville, Maryland, started a Pillow Pet drive to help children at the Johns Hopkins Hospital. I can perhaps see keeping where she lives in, as that explains Johns Hopkins (nearby)
How did the Today Show collaborate in this? Did the Red Cross actively seek out CJ Products (i.e rally collaborate), or did they just gladly accept their donations? Following the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami in Japan, CJ Products, The Today Show, and the American Red Cross, collaborated to support relief efforts in the country.
Here it would help to give some more detail - where is this charity located? Is Family Reach Foundation notable in the WP:NN sense?
Use "double quotes" not 'single quotes' for quotations (per the MOS)
Why no mention of similar (but non-counterfeit) products? Have you never seen Happy Nappers commercials?
What makes the awards notable - except for Toys R Us I have not heard of either awarding body / award and they are not wikilinked - do they meet notability?
Nearly half of the sources used are from the company itself (11 of 24). Try for as many independent third-party reliable sources as possible - see WP:V and WP:CITE
Similarly, some of the other sources used do not seem to meet WP:RS - what makes wegoptthiscovered.com a reliable source?
Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 06:08, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]