Talk:Burger King Specialty Sandwiches/GA1

GA Review 1[edit]

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: Calvin999 (talk · contribs) 17:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

General

Some connection issues

Lead

Done 1979 part of → 1979 as part of
? adult oriented fare → ?
Done the Original Chicken Sandwich, as the only product left. The Original Chicken Sandwich, also known as the → You don't need to bold the same thing twice.
Fixed The Original Chicken Sandwich, also known as the Long Chicken, BK Chicken and Chicken Royale. → This isn't a complete sentence.
Done "basic" → Wrong use of quotations here, need to be removed.

History

Done Link Burger King the first time it's mentioned as this is the main body of prose now.
Done that same year, → Over emphasis, remove 'same'
Done the BK menu. → Don't use informal abbreviation
Not done The breath of the new additions, → Use of 'the breath' is too informal and doesn't make sense ('breath of new life') -

That is breadth not breath, as in the variation of broad. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 05:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed The breath of the new additions, several new sandwiches → Doesn't flow properly
Done ingredients, was → Don't need a comma
Fixed design of Burger King's kitchen. Burger King's kitchen is designed → Severe case of repetition here
Fixed In comparison at the time, McDonald's → Over emphasis again, remove 'at the time'

Product description - Related products

Done Make the second and third paragraph into one paragraph. No need for two short paragraphs.

Advertising

Fixed Burger King introduced the Specialty sandwich line → Should sandwich be capitalised considering it's the name of a line?
Done Ads featured customers → Too informal, use Advertisements
Fixed singing the praises → Far too informal
Done Customers would get a card and would have to match → Customers would receive a card and they would have to match
Fixed The Meatloaf sandwich was part of the BK Dinner Baskets and promoted as part of the BK Tee Vee ad campaigns.
Fixed In the autumn and winter of 2007 BK advertised the Italian Chicken sandwich with a commercial that played the "Have it your Way" theme on an accordion with a simple text insert that asked the consumer if they had a problem with the sandwich being sold only at BK. This insert played up the Italian "toughguy" stereotypes. → This could be made into one paragraph. Also, it's unsourced.

Controversies

raised the ire → Raised the what?

Comment: - definition of ire

Fixed there is simply no way a $2.00 sandwich would use $15.00/lb veal. → Too informal

References

Fixed Ref 7 uses a different date format style for the date retrieved compared to the rest of them
Fixed Ref 13 is not a complete formatted reference
Fixed Ref 16 is not complete either, and has read missing links
I'm not so sure that using a Burger King menu for a source is exactly reliable. It's liable to change and it is self-published/not third party.

Comment: - Primary sources are allowed when confirming verifiability.

Ref 25 is not acceptable.

Comment: - Why? It is a published media, and it confirms what has been said. It may be primary, but since there is no analysis and the cite is only being used as verification it should be acceptable.

Outcome

There are numerous grammar mistakes, missing words in sentences, misspelt words, cases of not source being given and there are issues with the references. I'm sorry but I'm failing this article. It clearly wasn't proof read prior to nomination. — ₳aron 17:45, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.