Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wal-Mart/archive2

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 20:26, 7 May 2007.

Wal-Mart

edit

Previous FAC nomination in November 2005. Article was previously target of arguably the 'most famous' wiki war ever, not to mention the famous POV fork between Wal-Mart and Criticism of Wal-Mart. Both articles have considerably stabilized now, with the exception of some minor vandalism. Both articles have also recently achieved Good article status within the last month. The most recent GA review suggested that the article might do well as an FAC, so I thought I'd find out. Dr. Cash 16:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fixes needed before I will lend my support:
    • Section titled "Private label brands" needs some expansion and copyedit. It is a 2-sentance section, about 75% of which is a single quote, presented without context. This needs expansion. Also, the colon in the first sentance is unnecessary.
Section expanded with info on percentage of private label branded products and the launch of Sam's Choice in 1991. There is also a linked article as well, for more info. Dr. Cash 22:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I understand that the criticism section should not bog down the article, in this case it ONLY deals with the labor issues at Wal-Mart. It would be best to fold the entire section into earlier parts. For example, the Diversity sub-section and Competition sub-section already discusses criticism there; why not add a "Labor Relations" sub-section into the Corporate Affairs and eliminate the criticism section all together. Wikipedia deprecates the use of criticism sections anyways; this one is limited in its scope and could be better incorporated elsewhere in the article.
Criticism section moved to 'Employee and labor relations' under 'corporate affairs' now. The order of sections was changed slightly to put 'diversity' right after the employee relations part. Dr. Cash 22:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In same section, the image of the bumpersticker lacks fair-use rationale; I am also concerned that the presence of the image implies a non-neutral stance on the issues. It really doesn't add to the section, and doesn't belong.
Image removed. Dr. Cash 22:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Otherwise, the article looks pretty good. However, the above fixes are needed before I will lend my support. I am most concerned about the criticism section, which really should just be folded into other sections where contextually appropriate.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object Wal-Mart is quite (in)famous for the controversies surrounding the company's business practices. They should at least be hinted at in the lead, as should their aggressive (or highly successful, depending on how you see it) expansion strategies. And please try to clear all those dinky footnotes from the lead. It's supposed to be a summary and I don't see the point of repeating footnotes found in the main body of the article. Also, the notes should be separated from the individual sources. The reader should be provided with an overview of the sources, both print sources and websites. Peter Isotalo 19:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A summary of Wal-Mart's criticisms has been added back to the lead section. It was there before, I'm not sure why it was deleted originally, but it's back now. I agree that some mention of the criticisms of the company probably is worth a mention in the lead, since many are pretty notable. However, we don't want to overdo this, as has been done in the past in perhaps one of the most famous wiki-war's on the english wikipedia (note: said wiki-war is pretty much over now, as observed by a reviewer for the article's recent GA nomination).
I also removed the references from the lead, adding the referenced statements to other parts in the article. Although I'm not sure what you mean by, "Also, the notes should be separated from the individual sources." There are no 'notes' in the article; there are inline citations, which are all listed under 'references'. There are also lots of items listed under 'further reading', which are not directly cited in the text.
With regard to the statement, "The reader should be provided with an overview of the sources, both print sources and websites." one should note that, of the references, yes, most do have URLs and are online. But if you look at the source being cited, you'll see that many of these come from repudable sources and major media outlets, many of these which publish both in print AND online simultaneously. Dr. Cash 23:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I agree. No need to overdo it, and the current lead summary is adequate. Let's hope it doesn't disappear again. :-/
The design and purpose of this particular kind of inline citations are based on the footnotes used in print sources, hence "Notes". See, for example, Mary Wollstonecraft, Mayan languages or Scotland in the High Middle Ages. There are other ways of citing, like using the Harvard style "(Johnson 2005, p. 55)" or explicitly explaining the source "In the book My Life Jo Johnson states:".
What I meant by the latter comment was that I want to able to get a quick overview of the sources that have been used (not their individual citations) in a separate section, i.e. which sites have been used. Now that you pointed it out, I noticed that only online sources have been used. I can't comment on whether that's good or not, but I would still like to see a list of the sites separate from the footnotes. I see no reason why websites, which you say are serious enough to use as references, should be listed differently from how most printed references are.
Peter Isotalo 00:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that the lack of a seperate list of sources should not be the only thing holding this article up for featured status. The article's referencing complies entirely with the manual of style and all relevent policies and guidelines, including WP:CITE and WP:RS. While the above articles use a different style of referencing, there are dozens and dozens of already featured articles whose referencing is largely identical to this one, and I see no compelling reason that this article should be held up for featured status merely for that reason. For FAs whose referencing is exactly like this one, see: Aldol reaction, George Washington (inventor), Hurricane Gloria... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a shrubbery demand or an attempt to force anyone to jump through arbitrary hoops; having a separate list of sources will only improve the verifiability of the article. Overall, I find it odd that online sources are still consistently treated differently from print sources, even though everyone tries to insist that online sources are just as good (or even better) than books.
Peter Isotalo 06:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that Wikipedia is somewhat in disagreement over the exact format that references should take. WP:CITE suggests a format similar to what the Wal-Mart page currently follows. Wikipedia:Footnotes has an example with a 'notes' section, similar to what Peter suggests. If you look at the list of current Featured articles, I think you'll find FAs that use either format. Looking at two FAs, Hurricane Katrina and Louisville, Kentucky, both use a reference format similar to Wal-Mart. Both articles consist of predominantly (near 100%) of citations that come from online sources.
Also, with regard to online vs. print sources, I think you'll find that most print publications have been starting to print in both online and print formats simultaneously in the past couple of years. I would like to point out several such publications in the Wal-Mart article currently -- the New York Times, the Washington Post, Boston Globe, LA Times, Business Week, not to mention Zook's book, "Wal-Mart Nation: Mapping the Reach of a Retail Colossus," which is also cited by the article. Dr. Cash 17:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing one standard or another and neither am I challenging any sources. I'm saying that online sources should be treated the same way as print sources, and print sources are mostly listed separately, rather than being mixed up with the footnotes. Could we please try to argue the benefits of the proposal to the article, rather than the merit of slavishly following non-binding precedents from other, completely unrelated FAs?
Please note that the point here is to have a separate list of sources so that one can easily check how many (and which) sources have been used. I'm a bit surprised that anyone would take the time to argue against this, since the only purpose is to make the references less opaque. Pointing to certain styles in the MoS is not a valid argument against tweaking any of those styles.
Peter Isotalo 15:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've reviewed WP:CITE, WP:RS, and WP:V for information on how to handle 'print' versus 'online' sources, and how they should be separated, if so. The only reference to online sources in WP:V is to self-published books, personal websites, and blogs, of which there are none cited by the Wal-Mart article. The only book cited by the article is Matthew Zook's book, published by Routledge, so I wouldn't call that 'self-published'. There are two 'websites', about.com and snopes.com, but I think they meet WP:RS (if anyone has a problem with either of those sources, let me know and I can find a better source, but I think those two have proven to be pretty reliable, as they're more than just personal blogs). Wal-Mart's own website(s) is/are cited several times as well, but most of these go to press releases by the company or to annual reports and other useful information, which also meets WP:RS.
WP:CITE does not favor calling the references section 'notes', 'references', or 'footnotes'. The section WP:CITE#Further_reading/External_links states that, "All items used as sources in the article must be listed in the 'References' or 'Notes' section, and are not included in 'Further reading' or 'External links'," and does not further state that 'online' sources should be separated from 'print sources'.
So I remain confused at exactly what you are actually suggesting here? It should be pointed out that there is no formal rule in WP:WIAFA regarding the exact formatting of references, so I think this issue is rather trivial, and a minor disagreement over 'print' versus 'online' sources should not be used to measure the article against the featured article criteria. Dr. Cash 23:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. (Expanding and splitting up too provide sample of each as requested):
    • External jumps,
    • LOTS of WP:MSH problems,
      • 2.1 Wal-Mart Stores Division U.S.
        • 2.1.1 Wal-Mart Discount Stores
        • 2.1.2 Wal-Mart Supercenter
        • 2.1.3 Wal-Mart Neighborhood Market
    • numerous one-sentence and stubby paragraphs,
      • Wal-Mart Stores operates retail department stores selling a range of non-grocery products, though emphasis is now focused on the supercenters, which include more grocery items.
      • As of March 31, 2007, there were 582 Sam's Clubs in the United States.
      • The first Neighborhood Market opened in 1998 in Bentonville, Arkansas. As of March 31, 2007, there were 116 Neighborhood Markets in the United States.
      • As of March 31, 2007, there were 1,063 Wal-Mart Discount Stores in the United States. The busiest Wal-Mart in the world is in Southaven, Mississippi.
    • entire paragraphs loaded with hard data are uncited,
      • Wal-Mart operates Sam's Club, a chain of warehouse clubs that sells groceries and general merchandise, often in large quantities or volume. Sam's Club stores are only open to customers who subscribe to a paid, annual membership. Some locations also sell gasoline. The first Sam's Club opened in 1983 in Midwest City, Oklahoma.
      • An exterior of a typical Sam's Club store in Maplewood, Missouri, a suburb of the St. Louis area.According to Wal-Mart's 2006 Annual Report, Sam's Club accounted for approximately 12.7% of fiscal 2006 sales. Competitors of Wal-Mart's Sam's Club division are Costco, and the smaller BJ's Wholesale Club chain operating mainly in the eastern US.
      • Sales in the fiscal year 2006 for Wal-Mart's UK subsidiary, ASDA (an abbreviation of ASquith and DAiries), were 42.7% of the International segment sales. In contrast to Wal-Mart's US operations, ASDA was originally and remains primarily a grocery chain, but it has a stronger focus on non-foods than most UK supermarket chains (a notable exception is Tesco, UK's largest grocery & Non-food retailer). At the end of fiscal year 2006, there were 236 ASDA stores, 10 George stores, 5 ASDA Living and 43 ASDA small stores.
    • incorrect use of WP:DASH throughout,
      • In February 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a 2-1 ruling that ...
      • One of Wal-Mart's biggest issues is their high turnover rate – approximately 70% of its employees ...
      • merchandising strategy to a custom-fitting merchandise assortment designed to, "reflect each of six demographic groups – African-Americans, the affluent, ...
    • incorrect placement of templates per WP:GTL,
      • See also: Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Mauldin v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., and EEOC (Janice Smith) v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
      • See also: Criticism of Wal-Mart
    • lacking in criticism and controversy.
      • Not there, can't provide an example of the null set. Disagree with removing it, POV fork. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, the controversy and criticism section was not simply deleted, it was folded into the sections as appropriate; so that criticism of labor relations practice is NOW part of the labor relations section, criticism of diversity issues has been moved to that section, etc. Criticism is there, but not in a "Criticism" section, which like a "Trivia" section or a "In Pop Culture" section lacks context, and is open to abuse and degeneration which actually degrades the article. If more criticism is needed to make the article reflect NPOV, then it should be added to appropriate sections and NOT as an omnibus "Criticism" section.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This review is of absolutely no use whatsoever in helping to improve the article. It really only looks like bitching rather than a serious review. Please cite specific instances of the above-mentioned problems. With regard to criticism and controversy, the specific 'criticism' section was removed per comments above. Furthermore, the article references a very extensive Criticism of Wal-Mart article where most of that is -- there's no reason to go into very detailed analysis on that in this particular article when it's covered in a linked article. Also, the article is extensively well-referenced and I see no major gaps in the citations. Again, please cite specific areas where you believe the referencing is insufficient. Dr. Cash 04:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Samples provided. They are only samples, as requested; please don't fix and strike only those and consider the job done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further problems: there are missing (blank) footnotes, and issues with the WP:LEAD. The lead should be a compelling, stand-alone summary of the article. There is uncited data in the lead which is not discussed or cited elsewhere in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be easier to amend that problem if you specified which part of the lead that you believe is not covered elsewhere.
Peter Isotalo 18:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object as per Sandy. And the prose needs a proper copy-edit throughout. Let's look at the lead as an example.
    • "Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (NYSE: WMT) is an American public corporation, and is currently the world's largest retailer as well as the world's largest corporation." "is ... is" is clumsy. "the world's" x 2. "as well as" is a marked version of "and"; why is everything emphasised? Try: "Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (NYSE: WMT), an American public corporation, is currently the world's largest retailer and largest corporation. Very bad start. Is it all like this?
    • "the United States (US)"—hello, do we need the spelling out followed by the abbreviation? Then it's linked (twice!) in the subsequent sentence; bizarre. Don't link it.
    • "$61.049 billion, up 10.1% from the previous year's results"—MoS says you make it "$62 billion" unless there's a good reason for such micro-precision. Remove "'s results" as redundant.
    • "Internationally, Wal-Mart operates all over the US, in Mexico as Walmex, in the United Kingdom (UK) as ASDA and in Japan as The Seiyu Co., Ltd."—Remove the first word and don't bother spelling out "United Kingdom".
    • "the corporations' union representation"—I don't think so; the polarity is wrong ("resistance to ..." or "attitude to ...").
    • "the use of public subsidies"—are you sure it's the use, rather than the receipt of public subsidies?

This is way below the "professional" standard of writing that is required. Tony 00:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Wal-Mart/archive2&oldid=1078809209"