Talk:Poundland/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: AmericanAir88 (talk · contribs) 00:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Good day, I hope you are having a fantastic week. I hope we can get through this easy and stress free. I apologize for you having to wait so long for a review to come, but the wait is over.

Opening Comments

Welcome to the review for Poundland. I structure my reviews like a trial. My reviews are all about your voice as I will simply post issues and you will do the work solving them. If necessary I will make very minor copy edits to the article if I feel they don't need a whole bullet point dedicated to them. Anyway, I am looking forward to working with you. AmericanAir88 (talk) 00:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Issues

@Bungle: Apologize for the wait, I have been busy with the holidays. @Bungle: *"founded in 1990 that sells most items in its stores for £1," Awkward Sentence, Talk more about Dollar stores.

• • Not sure what you mean by this comment. Dollar stores are from a different country, and whilst in the same genre, don't have any day-to-day relevance to this chain. The Variety store article linked in this sentence discusses the business model as a whole. Can you clarify what your thoughts are on this comment? Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:23, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
    • @Bungle:Sorry, I am from America. I meant to say that the statement "sells most items for 1 euro" seems awkward and you are better off stating variety store.
      • Ok, well the variety store mention is at the very start, and most items for sale do cost £1. It used to be *every* item until a change in strategy, hence "most" items are now £1, which is an important fact to note, especially given the name of the chain. I can see how other similar articles tackle the opening sentence and whether there is room for changes, perhaps. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:22, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

*"Like many of its rivals," Take that out and replace it with a more neutral sentence

• • I reworded this part to combine some of the text around it which seemed redundant. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:23, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

*The lead needs to be less promotional

• • Could you offer some examples? Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:23, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
    • "constantly rotating product line of over 3,000 products, including clearance items as well as many proprietary brands. "
      • hmm, I am struggling to think of a better way of phrasing it. It's factually correct that they have 3000 products, comprising clearance lines and branded, which frequently rotate.. this is another way of phrasing it, but equates to the same thing. Perhaps suggest how you might phrase it instead, whilst providing the same information? Maybe if I removed the mention of "over 3000" (which is mentioned in the prose anyway) and just stuck to the fact they frequently rotate clearance and branded? Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:22, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

*Lead is completely unreferenced, fill in "Citation needed" areas.

• • As per MOS:LEAD, the lead section should be a condensed/overview of the article as a whole, thus information will be repeated and subsequently referenced in the prose. I used to think the same as you here, that the lead should be referenced, but over time I have come to realise this is often unnecessary and redundant (and the MOS page says the same). If I have omitted any prose mentions/citations of info mentioned in the lead, let me know and i'll remedy it. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:23, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Removing citation needed tags

*The first sentence needs to be rearranged, as starting with "Claiming" seems awkward. Maybe have the founders be the first topic.

I have restructured so the founders and founding year are the sentence openers.

*"given they could easily undercut every retailer in sight." Go more indepth into this. It is a very interesting topic. It abandons ship.

I remember reading this comment on the source, however the source link doesn't go the article anymore. Whilst I could check archive.org, I am thinking there is a chance it could also have been original research from the original new article editor (and does seem rather opinionated), so I have reworded with something different.

*"that store" should be replaced with another name such as "The pilot store"

This wasn't something I added in, and it seems whoever did has not offered a reference, so I have removed.

Excellent work on Early 2000's

*All statements from people should have quotation marks. If paraphrased, quote the words that are identical.

There was one that had "saying" in the sentence, but the prose afterwards was actually already a paraphrase from the source text. I have changed "saying" to "claiming", unless you meant a different bit?

Good Work

*Elaborate more on the beginning of "Recent History"

*"Running a store in which prices do not change presents challenges, particularly with inflation, however inflation has also meant that some products which used to have an RRP below £1 (and were thus cheaper elsewhere) may now represent better value at £1." The point of view is very awkward in this. This sentence feels more like a lecture than a wiki article.

Has now been reworded.

*"typically dismissed by Poundland," Please elaborate, This is very interesting.

Has now been reworded.

*" The retailer is keen to move away " Seems a little unnatural

Has now been reworded.

• Using words like "the retailer" could confuse the reader.

Not sure I follow? Poundland are a retailer..

Issue Removed Not done

*The lead of the criticism section needs to be more general as it is addressing everything.

I accept your point here, and have restructured. I have created a new section from previous lead prose, and written a new paragraph to summarise the sub-sections.

@Bungle: Issues have been delivered. AmericanAir88 (talk) 23:16, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

All Issues have been completed, the review table will now begin. AmericanAir88 (talk) 03:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Review Table

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Check
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Check
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Check
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Check
	2c. it contains no original research.	Check
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Check
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Check
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Check, Fantastic Detail
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Check
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Check
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Check
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Check
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass

Closing Comments

Congratulations on passing. Your dedication and hard work was fantastic. I hope we can work together in the near future. Have a fantastic day. If you need any help on anything just ask. If you want me to take a look at any other articles you have for review, I will be more than happy to. Thank you and have a Happy New Year. AmericanAir88 (talk) 03:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

@AmericanAir88: Many thanks for this. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:48, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

@Bungle: My pleasure AmericanAir88 (talk) 15:53, 31 December 2017 (UTC)