Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Criticism of Wal-Mart/archive1
Very comprehensive, well sourced, copy-edited and NPOV. A well written article, especially considering the danger of POV for this article. I believe deserves FA status. Justinmeister 17:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, and 2a. I can see a lot of work went into the article, but it needs more. The "Taxes" section needs more verification. Particularly, the phrase "Critics (such as the U.S. Internal Revenue Service) charge that the company was trying to profit from the deaths of its employees" is the most important part of the section, since it explicitly names a critic, but it isn't supported by the one reference. The prose very often uses commas awkwardly or incorrectly. Most importantly, the more I read it, the article often fails to identify the groups making particular complaints. So in the "Product selection" section, most of the individual examples are cited, but nowhere do we learn just who is criticizing Wal-Mart over these examples; it just says that Wal-Mart was criticized over and over again. The lead section does not appear to be a summary of the article. The second and third paragraphs particularly discuss topics that are not revisited. Most critically, the lead hints at efforts by Wal-Mart to respond to their critics; without an exploration of those efforts, the article isn't comprehensive.
I would suggest going through the article looking for weasel words and passive voice, and where you find them, replace them with identifications of specific critics. Copyedit the article a bit more. Try to export specific, extraordinary claims that require citations out of the lead section and give them some room to grow in the body. Melchoir 22:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose 1d, 1e, and 3. First off, this article is a POV fork and possibly the most infamous one on the English Wikipedia. It was nominated for deletion a couple months ago, therefore I question its stability. As much as I would like to see this featured on Main Page, I hardly doubt that would ever happen. There are not enough images in this article; in addition, the fair use images are used for decoration and the context of their captions and usage is quite
NPOVPOV. The first one is of a bumper sticker made by ReclaimDemocracy.org, an organization that is only mentioned in this article's External links section; the second is a comic strip in popular media that parodies a people greeter -- none mention who Wal-Mart is being criticized by. In addition, this article has way too many child articles. Tuxide 22:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)- I don't understand your criticism that the images are used "for decoration", clearly they are prominent examples of criticism of Walmart, one by a political organization, another in popular media. If the captions need work, that's one thing, but saying they are merely "for decoration" is rediculous. I also don't understand the criticism that the article has too many child articles. I don't see any child articles, just one sibling article, Wal-Mart employee and labor relations. What child articles are you referring to? Kaldari 19:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- I guess there is just the one child article, I completely forgot that the "five criticism of Wal-Mart articles" dilemma was resolved a while ago; however there is still the second one, which contributes to this article's instability. The two images are not referenced in the article. For example, I would expect something about ReclaimDemocracy.org to be mentioned in a paragraph, however it is not. On the other hand, this article is merely a collection of information where the only discriminator is negative POV against Wal-Mart. Even if this was a featured article, it will never be linked to on Main Page for this reason. If I wanted to read about ReclaimDemocracy.org's stance against Wal-Mart, I would probably refer to the ReclaimDemocracy.org article instead, since this is the party that is giving the criticism. There used to be a fair-use image on the Planet of the Apes thing that was tied in perfectly to the respective paragraph. I wonder what happened to it. Tuxide 07:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- I don't understand your criticism that the images are used "for decoration", clearly they are prominent examples of criticism of Walmart, one by a political organization, another in popular media. If the captions need work, that's one thing, but saying they are merely "for decoration" is rediculous. I also don't understand the criticism that the article has too many child articles. I don't see any child articles, just one sibling article, Wal-Mart employee and labor relations. What child articles are you referring to? Kaldari 19:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)