The Good article nomination for Federal Trade Commission has failed, for the following reason:

This article is a long way from being a good article. Here are the criteria, point by point. (1)Well written. It's OK, but "The Federal Trade Commission" or "FTC" is in almost every sentence, so it reads like a menu or a brochure, not a fluid article. (2)Factually accurate Who knows? Not a single reference anywhere! (3) Broad in its coverage. Nope. Each of these subheadings should be several paragraphs. The paragraphs here are good, as they give general overview, but it would be nice to have specific dates on when they were established, who is heading these commissions, maybe some controversies, decisions they've made, brief mention of, say, specific anti-trust cases. To be fair, a few of these facts appear in a few of the sections, but there just isn't enough here. There should also be expansion of the information on process in "Activities of the FTC". (4)NPOV So far, good job here. (5) Stable Sure, but too stable. This article will be very involved because of the research required of the topic, and this article less than 500 edits. But at least it isn't a vandal playground. (6) Images Very nice initial photo. Maybe the Commission seal (does it have one?) could be included. An infobox (a la United States Department of Energy) might be a nice addition.--Esprit15d 13:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[]

This article could be greatly improved by adding the official FC logo/seal.16:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess this image: http://www.ftc.gov/images/Homepage_footer_left.gif should do, even copyright wise, but I don't have the time to read the policies about uploading right now ^^. (nb: simply did a google image search) Aleph42 09:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[]

Done. Carl Lindberg 21:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[]

I'll leave it to someone else to make the call and implement, but I find it rather strange that there are two almost-identical images of the FTC building, stacked on top of each other. I'd just remove the second image, as it's lower-res (and lower contrast). I just wonder if there's a reason for this I'm overlooking? Fogster (talk) 03:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[]

You are right. I am removing the second image. --71.225.51.30 (talk) 00:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[]

The article might need to be updated after news of them setting new guidelines in relation to bloggers/tweeters etc. [1].Calaka (talk) 06:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[]

Blog entry from prominent investor on the FTC vs Lifelock settlement that is pretty insightful and shows what the FTC attempts to accomplish in its settlements: http://whohastimeforthis.blogspot.com/2010/03/lifelock-settles-with-ftc.html Iamchmod (talk) 16:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[]

Source for inclusion. Viriditas (talk) 19:54, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[]

I don't make too many edits on Wikipedia, but I was wondering why the page isn't organized like the page of a government agency? There's no infobox, and that seems odd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thenextprez (talk • contribs) 02:08, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[]

The "Notable Recent Work" is awkward because ordering events by the most recent administration to older ones is inconsistent among US government articles. Is there any particular reason to structure this section this way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DerpyContributor (talk • contribs) 15:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[]

Leaving this here as a note to myself to add information to the article

• https://www.theverge.com/2018/12/6/18129572/facebook-uber-ftc-conflict-interest-andrew-smith

John Cummings (talk) 11:25, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[]

I'm not currently editing or improving the article, but I did remove the {{Primary sources section}} template from the "Unfair or deceptive practices" section. The material there cites U.S. law (15 U.S.C. § 45), FTC policy statements, and published agency guidance—all of which are appropriate primary sources for describing regulatory authority and enforcement frameworks. The section doesn't use those sources for interpretive claims, so the template seemed unnecessary clutter. No other judgment implied. – Eurodog (talk) 23:07, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[]

@Snokalok: You reverted my edit for what I would call voice, the specific wording rather than the overall meaning of the sentence. I think my phrasing is a better capture of the NPOV voice that benefits wikipedia. I agree it is further from the source voice. If you think the source voice should be used I do not have a problem with that, but it should be used as a quote to make clear that it is not wikipedia's voice. However if you think it should be in wikipedia's voice then I would appreciate some more explanation of your edit summary. WP:VOICE Czarking0 (talk) 13:56, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[]

Thank you for opening this.

First off, if you think we should have quotation marks around certain phrases, perhaps with in-text attribution, I don't see a tremendous problem with that either. I think saying "What STAT news described as (...)" is not a major issue either way; but ultimately I think it unnecessary because, based on the testimony the source quotes, along with the affiliations of many testifiers that it describes, I don't really find it to be a controversial description. It's one that doesn't look good to be described as, certainly, but I can't really see any angle from which it wouldn't be accurate. Secondly, I think that the fraud part is necessary given that it makes up the recurring point of both the hearing and the testimonies quoted in the source. Simply ctrl+F fraud to see what I mean. Snokalok (talk) 14:01, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[]

Can I also dispute "included"? Because that makes it sound like others were allowed to give testimony, it gives the connotation of a fair hearing. This was not that in any capacity. Snokalok (talk) 14:33, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[]

I like the change to involved Czarking0 (talk) 01:15, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[]

And I'm fine with the changes you've made since then Snokalok (talk) 13:51, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[]

This section at the end of the lead says:

In March 2025, Trump fired two Democratic commissioners without cause, sparking a legal dispute.[7] In July 2025, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia reinstated Democratic Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, ruling that her removal had been illegal.[8]

This seems unnecessary, I can't remember any cool policies to cite but I think this is against one KeyGremlin (talk) 01:38, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[]

Good catch, removed from lead at it is undue weight for the lead Czarking0 (talk) 03:47, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Commissioner Mark Meador.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:09, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[]