Talk:PepsiCo/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jerem43 (talk • message • contribs • count • logs • email) 06:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Nominator has not edited this article since September and its now over 100 days since the review started. I am failing this as no progress. Nominator if free to renominate when problems have been sorted. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose):

   ✓ Pass The prose is of good quality, I'll look over it more heavily later. After a full review, I find the article is well written and succinct.

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

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (references):

   ✓ Pass Fixed.  On hold There are several errors in the citations, please see below.

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   ✓ Pass The sources all meet the standards of WP:RS and WP:PSTS.

   c. (OR):

   ✓ Pass There is no original research I can identify.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects):

   ✓ Pass The article covers the major aspects of the company

   b. (focused):

   ✓ Pass the article stays on topic quite well

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   ✓ Pass The article is fairly neutral, with no weasel words or peacock statements. NPOV standards have been met.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   ✓ Pass No issue here. Just vandalism reverts.

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

   a. (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):

   Y - File:Pepsico logo.svg is a fair use image with valid fair use rationale;

   Y - File:PepsiCoHQPurchaseNY.jpg is a verified Commons CCA 2.0 image without issues;

   Y - File:Plaza Venezuela, Caracas.jpg is a verified Commons CCA 2.0 image without issues;

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments

1. Images - While images are not required for a Good Article, the article is a massive wall of text. I suggest, though do not require, that you add additional, appropriate images to it where possible.

2. Lead - There are citations in the lead section. Per WP:Lead, this is not really required if the article is not controversial in nature and the information being summarized in the lead is properly sourced in the body of the article. Please remove those citations and move them to the proper location in the body.

   Thank you for the review. I'll help address your concerns this evening. JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

3. Citations - There some issues with the citations:
   1. There are several instances where the source (e.g. - New York Times) is linked in each and every citation. This not eeded. Please repair.
   2. The DOI field is improperly used in several citations. These need to be fixed. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 19:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

4. Images - Jeff created several images for inclusion, but since I am the reviewer it would be inappropriate for me to decide on their inclusion. Could another involved party please do so?

5. Environmental record and product nutrition - This section is unwieldy in its naming and implementation. Could you restructure it so to address this?
   1. Title - This is the primary problem with the section, as it is too long. Mayhaps Controversies or some other term would be a better name for it?

   2. Headings - There are too many, move the L5 (=====) headings up one notch and loose the L4 (====). Also tighten them up please, they are too long.

   3. Tone - This seems to be a little to promotional in its tone in some parts, maybe loose some of the adspeak and peacock statements?

   4. Water usage - Copy edit, it reads poorly. Loose or reword "Water usage concerns have arisen at times in other countries in which PepsiCo operates." in the third paragraph and give the whole section a once over please.

   5. Product diversity - Does that belong in this section? It appears to be part of another section or a lead to another part of this part of the article.

   6. Ingredient changes - I can see a {{who}} issue in the first sentence, which advocates?

   7. Distribution to children - Second paragraph needs a copy edit.

Lets give this to Friday to address Jezhotwells concerns regarding the drawn out nature of this. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 18:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Other concerns

It's been a month and I can't even tell if the review has been completed yet. Can that happen? Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

No one has done anything or responded to my entreaties. If nothing is done in 48 hours, I'll fail it. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 16:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello there Jerem43 and Wizardman, I had intended to follow up with a few additional photos for this article a week or two ago (per Jerem43's suggestion), but to be frank, it completely slipped my mind. I'll respond right here with these photos within the next 5 hours! Cheers, Jeff Bedford (talk) 17:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I just took two photos, which should help to provide a visual example of some of the current PepsiCo products. It would be nice to have a photo of all of the products, but that would be quite challenging as there are several hundred out there.

• photo of a handful of various PepsiCo beverages: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jeffbedford/6218820224/
• photo of a handful of different PepsiCo foods products: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jeffbedford/6218302141/

I've licensed them as CC-BY-SA, so please feel free to add them to the article anywhere that you all see fit. Please let me know if I can be of any help in taking other photos. Cheers, Jeff Bedford (talk) 23:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• I was browsing the list of GA noms, and wanted to chime in here because I think the section title of "Sustainability practices" is the kind of corporate PR-speak that should be done away with in articles about major multinational corporations. The section is about the environmental record and nutrition of the products, not sustainability. Steven Walling • talk 06:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

• Agreed--I think your section title change makes sense. Jeff Bedford (talk) 15:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Anything else now that the photo issue has been addressed? Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:26, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes there is, please see above.--Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 04:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello all, I just addressed the citation issues in the article. I believe that the improper use of the "doi" parameter in the citations was my fault; I must have thought that it meant "date of issuance." This has been corrected. Let me know if any other areas need assistance. Cheers, Jeff Bedford (talk) 18:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

At this point a pass or fail should just be decided on the article; it's been under review too long. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:01, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion, but I'd like to keep it open for now. The original nom never got back to the GA, but Jeff Bedford has been working on fixing the problems, but has been doing this as a favor to me. I can see it as being finished soon. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 18:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Time to wrap it up. dragging out a review over several months is a pointless exercise and does the project no good at all. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey all, anything I can do to help? If there are any sections in particular that need copyediting (or anything, for that matter), I'd be happy to pitch in. Jeff Bedford (talk) 14:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Jeff, Ill get back to you on this tomorrow, my computer is down with a virus. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 05:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to add my thanks, Jeff: I appreciate your generous offer to pitch in. Wikipedia needs more people like you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

If the reviewer is not able to identify now what issues need addressing, then then this review should be concluded immediately. Dragging this out over three and a half months is ridiculous. If issues have not been addressed then fail the nomination now. Te reviewer and nominee can then continue to improve at their own personal leisure. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for voicing your concerns, this will be completed shortly. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 11:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

What is the status of this review? It looks like promises have been made over the past few months to provide more issues, then have people fix problems, but I don't see any resolution. Jezhotwells is correct. GA reviews should just be a matter of comparing to the criteria and providing details for each. Do you think this article meets the criteria now? AstroCog (talk) 03:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I am waiting for Jeff to respond. I left him a note about the stuff that was posted, and asked him to respond by Friday. He seems to be unavailable. If no response by Sunday, I'll fail it. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 05:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi All, I have been away for a bit on an impromptu vacation, and am just returning to Wikipedia. I see that the article did not pass the GA review, and I think you all made a wise decision to not let this review go on for too long. I still intend to correct the points that Jeremy pointed out most recently, but with the holidays coming up I will be travelling quite a bit and may not have the time to revisit this article to give it the time it deserves until the new year. As time allows I'll try to address these changes, and as soon as I get the article to the point where it seems worthy of starting up the GA review process, I will let you all know. Cheers, Jeff Bedford (talk) 19:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)