Talk:Burger King franchises/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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

Reviewer: Bonkers The Clown (talk · contribs) 13:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is fairly well written.

A (prose): B (MoS): Overall:

While the prose is clear and concise and respects copyright laws, the grammar is not so correct.

Done

Grammar. Some sentences are strange. One random one I picked out is this: As the end of Burger King's 2012 fiscal year, Carrols is the largest US franchisee of the chain with over 450 restaurants in New York, Ohio, and ten other states I don't quite understand "As the end". I presume you mean "As of"

Done

Other strange written sentences: Hana International, is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Saudi Arabia-based Olayan Group along and its partner Kuwait-based MH Alshaya Group, is the exclusive master franchisee for the Middle East and North Africa, excluding Israel and Turkey. Repetition of words (2 "is") that shouldn't be there. Please check for such other minor errors.

Done

Your use of dmy date styles within the article is not in compliance with WP:STRONGNAT, BK being a US company. Use mdy dates instead. I expect that this feat can be accomplished in (reasonably) a day's time.

Not done - Dates are in US format, and strongnat does not refer to citations.

Burger King is a U.S. company with an international scope. It has been owned by a British company, and isn't/wasn't it recently owned by Brazilians? As so many of its locations are overseas, I don't think it has particularly strong ties to the U.S., and for me, the date formatting is not an issue.Farrtj (talk) 15:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Style is inconsistent. "Hungry Jack's", one of the franchisees to note, is bolded during the first mention of the name, whereas "Hana International", "Carrols Corporation" and "Army and Air Force Exchange Service" are not.

Done

Factually accurate and verifiable

It is factually accurate and verifiable
A. Has an appropriate reference section:
Although I believe you could incorporate the "notes" section somewhere in the "References" section

No obvious original research can be found.

Coverage

Broad in its coverage : it does address the main aspects of the topic and it stays focused on the topic without going into not necessary detail, though I believe you could incorporate some information about overseas franchises (info from List of countries with Burger King franchises)

WP:Neutral point of view

It is Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.

Stability

It is fairly stable... Significant change of citation styles... With regards to WP:STRONGNAT. Few reversions here and there.... As shown HERE.

Pictures

I like the pictures... However, while it is indeed good illustration, I fail to see a point behind using a picture of junk food (drinks, fries and a burger) for the lead image in the infobox. It is rather misleading. I would prefer a picture of a BK restaurant somewhere (such as File:2008-11-11 Burger King in Durham.jpg), instead of food. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 04:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures:

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Review status: Done

I will boldly put the article on hold for fixes to be made. (This is my first review... Forgive thy clown if he were to screw up in any way) Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 13:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, I did not see the review until two weeks after you posted it. I am working on the various requests you have made and will have them done before 21 January 2013. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 20:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's way past a week, but I think it's okay.

Issue(s) - You still have not changed the ret dates to comply with WP:STRONGNAT. Some minor things I spotted: With regards to the China franchisee section, the term Simplified Chinese (with a wiki link) is preferred per MOS as opposed to "Mandarin" - An umbrella term that could relate to bureaucrats, to Chinese oranges, to a comic book villain, and the list goes on. Anyways. As addressed a few lines or so above, it isn't so appropriate for a picture of junk food to take up the Infobox image spot... A little not so relevant. As it is an article concerning franchises, why not use a picture of a BK restaurant instead? Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 09:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It'd also be good if a third party could step forward to re-review, lest there are any more outstanding issues which I unknowingly missed.

Strongnat refers dates within the article itself, not the format of the citations. The citations use a standard form present in the citation template generator that is part of Wikipedia. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 08:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

Bonkers the Clown asked for some third party input, and as Jeremy has helped to review some of my articles in the past, I thought I'd comment. This is a well researched and extensive article, but I do have a few quibbles:

Date formatting shouldn't be an issue, see my point above.Farrtj (talk) 15:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dollar amounts are linked seemingly at random.
- Fixed 09:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Europe seems largely ignored, which seems strange to me, as Burger King is a major chain in Britain, where I come from. The British case is quite interesting: the chain expanded to around 500 units after Grand Met began converting the Wimpy chain into BKs. Farrtj (talk) 16:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason is because the locations were primarily owned by Burger King at the time, not franchised. The reason Europe is not really covered is because there isn't allot of information on it available. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 09:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

History

History section could do with an image.Farrtj (talk) 15:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The first instance of "Grand Metropolitan" should be linked. I would introduce the company like this: "Grand Metropolitan (Grand Met)", removing the PLC, which shouldn't be capitalised anyway, and bracketing its common abbreviation so that it doesn't come out of the blue later on.Farrtj (talk) 15:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done -09:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Instance of "Diageo" spelled as "Diaego" needs to be fixed.Farrtj (talk) 15:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed -09:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
The Phyllis Berman reference does not actually say that the failure of AmeriKing was responsible for the decline in Burger King's value.Farrtj (talk) 15:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed - One of my saved links covered this exactly. Th FT link is pretty good too, I may use that. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 05:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The explanation given by Diageo is: "the company had to accept the reality of a deteriorating fast food market and more difficult financing environment." [1] Farrtj (talk) 18:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

International

The OED prefers "reentered" with a hyphen. [2] Farrtj (talk) 16:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not done - US Spelling. -09:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Nothing about BK's failure in France? Farrtj (talk) 16:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- On hold - As far as I see, that was not franchise related. I can look into it. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 09:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done - The new Autogrill franchise information covers this. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 06:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relations

The first sentence reads a bit odd and clunky.Farrtj (talk) 16:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- On hold Looking at that. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 09:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"spat" to mean quarrel is colloquial according to the OED. Suggest "dispute" instead? Farrtj (talk) 16:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done -09:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

This is about franchise relations, most of those topics are covered in the main Burger King article or the history of Burger King article. The reason thsome of these topics are not covered as they do not relate to franchise operations. I'll work on some of the other stuff as I can. Thank you sir.--Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 04:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to be of assistance.Farrtj (talk) 11:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its fair enough if there isn't any info available, but this FT article from 15th Feb 2013 claims that 97% of BK outlets are franchised. [3] Just found this coincidentally, as I skimmed the FT. Farrtj (talk) 11:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, they've been dumping locations globally as the new owners want to restructure the company as an exclusive franchisor. The last 18 months have seen the franchise situation change dramatically, hence the massive expansion of this article. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 05:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anything left?

Hello! Thought I'd check in on the status of this GAN, as I was wanting to review it myself, many months ago. It looks like all concerns have been responded to, at least within the most recent section. Is there anything remaining, or might it be ready for a stamp of approval? -- Zanimum (talk) 01:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Everything is addressed, and the reviewer seems to be done with this, so I'll close it. Wizardman 14:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you guys! --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 20:39, 1 March 2013 (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.