Talk:Burger King Specialty Sandwiches/GA2

GA Review 2

The following discussion 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.

---

Review

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

Reviewer: Zwerg Nase (talk · contribs) 08:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

On it. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

TYVM, --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 08:39, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Dear @Jerem43: before I start the review proper, I must say this: The article confuses me a little bit. It is called Burger King Specialty Sandwiches, but covers pretty much only the Original Chicken sandwich, better known to me in Germany as the Long Chicken. I see here that this has been a matter of debate in the past. A majority seemed to think that the sandwich should not have its own article and therefore merged a number of articles into this one. That raises the question over the validity of this article, since it is practically about only the Original Chicken sandwich... Is there any chance you can expand the article about more information concerning the other products in the Specialty line? Or maybe we can rename the article again? Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:52, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Nothing was merged into this article, it started out as the Original Chicken Sandwich, aka the Long Chicken Sandwich, but I moved it over to the family name because BK has again having begun selling other sandwiches in the family again (the XL Cheeseburgers, Limo Burgers in Europe and the Middle East, and a pulled pork sandwich). As a result of these newer sandwiches, I decided to expand on the original Original Chicken Sandwich article and make it about the family of products known as the Specialty Sandwiches, the original name of the products when they were introduced in the 1970s.

The previous AfD was many years ago and was done by an editor that felt Burger King products were not worthy of their own articles for each individual product. I was originally against this, as you can read in the AfD, but I have come to realize that many products do not need their own articles and I began grouping them into product families - Burger King grilled chicken sandwiches, Burger King fish sandwiches, Burger King premium burgers and Burger King breakfast sandwiches. My recent move of the article to this title is in part of that move to product families instead of individual products, as I stated BK is again expanding the line to burgers and pork sandwiches. They even had a breakfast sandwich called the Enormous Omelet Sandwich that can be said as being part of this family of sandwiches because of the use of the 7-inch sub roll in its recipe.

Tell me what you would like to see me expand on and I should be able to do so in short order.

Does this explanation help? --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 04:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it does very much, thank you! Expect the review shortly. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Alright, here we go:

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Issues

This is an article on a line of Burger King products, but features mainly the Original Chicken Sandwich and its variants. I made some minor tweaks myself. The following things I think need to be adressed before it can pass for Good Article:

• Lead section: In the second paragraph, you write in which it does business two times in short succession, which reads quite repetitive, you should rephrase that.

•  Fixed - I apparently fixed this in a sweep I did after you began the GA process. -Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!)

• History: In the last paragraph, you basically write the same information about the Yumbo that you have already given the paragraph before. You could simply write The name refers to the earlier burger of the same name from the 1970s and 80s or something like that.

•  Fixed - That was a little awkwardly worded. - Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!)

• Advertising: In the first paragraph, you write wherereceive, which I believe is not a word. Please fix.

•  Fixed - I rewrote the sentence, It appears that I may have accidently deleted a section and merged two words together. - Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!)

• Advertising: In the second paragraph, you write was out spending, which I find is too colloquial for an encyclopedia.

•  Fixed - That was a case of me typing and not proofreading. I put a space between two parts of a word that should be co-joined ( it should have been outspending not out spending). I also changed the number '3' into the word 'three'. - Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!)

• Advertising: The last paragraph is lacking a reference.

•  Fixed - tough one, got it though. - Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!)

• Controversies: Second paragraph, you name the position of the image in the text. This should not be done according to MOS:IMAGES, since it will be displayed differently on mobile devices.

•  Question: - I'm unsure of what you mean, could you please explain? --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 07:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• WP:IMGLOC says: Avoid referring to images as being on the left or right. Image placement is different for viewers of the mobile version of Wikipedia, and is meaningless to people having pages read to them by assistive software. I have therefore changed it now to (pictured). Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you  - Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!)

• Controversies: In the third paragraph, Just about is also too colloquial.

•  Fixed - Reword to Almost. - Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!)

• Controversies: third paragraph, the sentence She also felt that the image of the woman in the advertisement had been overtly sexualized, have the effect of objectifying women in general. seems odd, maybe place an and in there somewhere?

•  Fixed - The sentence was a bit weird, I reworded it a little in a way that I believe fixed some of the structural issues. - Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!)

• Trademarks: The last info on trademarks in Mexico and the Middle East lacks a reference.

•  Fixed - I cited the claims, I had to reword it a bit to reflect the expansion of BK in the Central and South American regions. - Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!)

• Please also take care of WP:REPEATLINK issues.

•  Fixed - I removed about 20 instances of simple or duplicated wikilinks. - Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!)

I give the editor the usual seven days to address the issues. Good work so far! Cheers, Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:09, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Got the first half done, nap time! --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 07:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Note-

I need to make some minor tweaks to address items listed in the lead but not in the body. Please give me a day to ensure that I cover everything that I listed in the lead is also in article. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 09:21, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

No problem! Good work so far :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

@Jerem43: Are you through? Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:46, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done - I work Thurs-Sun and was really busy. I believe I am, I gott everything you mentioned. If you want take a quick look through and see if anything else catches your eye or that I may have missed. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 06:13, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Looks all good now. It's a pass :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

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.