Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Odwalla

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:46, 23 September 2008 [1].

Odwalla[edit]

Nominator(s): Intothewoods29 (talk)


Well, this is my first FA nom. This article has undergone a peer review and is currently a Food & Drink Good Article. I'm the primary contributor. Oh, and just for your reference, before I started editing, the article looked like this. If it passed, it'd be the 12th F&D FA. Thanks. Intothewoods29 (talk) 23:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image comment There seems to be some misunderstanding between copyright and trademark. Images that contain trademarks should be tagged {{trademark}}, could the images be reviewed with respect to Wikipedia:Public_domain to see if free images can be provided Fasach Nua (talk) 11:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Okay well I'll need some help on that. Of the four non-free images on the article, two are mine, one is from a website and is unattainable because it's a discontinued product, and one is the company logo from the website. I was under the impression that all four were non-free because they displayed the Odwalla logo, which is copyrighted. Do you want me to replace the copyright tag on the image pages with the trademark tag, or do you want me to simply add the trademark tag, or some other third thing that I'm just not getting. Thanks for your patience. Intothewoods29 (talk) 16:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. I added the trademark tag to the four non-free pics. I took the picture in question at my local grocery store. I assumed it was non-free because it has that big Odwalla logo at the top. Intothewoods29 (talk) 18:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the picture was taken in the US, then it is probably not eligiable to be freely licenced Fasach Nua (talk) 08:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Referenceforbusiness is a great business reference site (hence the name) that provides free articles about different companies (like Odwalla). It's reliable because 1) many of its facts are backed up in a number of other sources on Odwalla, 2) it cites its sources, and 3) because it's not selling anything (unlike many of the other business reference sites on the internet). I have gone through and gotten the info I need from a few of the sources on the bottom of the page, but some are archived or non-free, so I just used the referenceforbusiness page for that. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 16:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a website for businesses about Corporate social responsibility. The ref in question is an article about Odwalla's response to the E. Coli outbreak. Like referenceforbusiness, this ref has sources cited at the bottom also (most of which are used in the Odwalla article now). I could easily remove this if you object; I won't lose much. Intothewoods29 (talk) 16:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Intothewoods29 (talk) 16:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I removed the ref. It was only used twice in the article: once paired with another ref, and the other time just backing up a kind of POVy (?) quote. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 18:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update on 17 September. The one remaining reference is a borderline one I left uncapped/unstruck for other reveiewers to decide for themselves. I consider everything but that sourced well. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I removed that ref, but I forgot to strike it. Oops! :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 18:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Support - the prose looks quite good. Just a few points:

  • Why is some of the lead sourced and some of it not?
  • "Odwalla is a health food company..." - irrelevant to the "Origins" section. Just say "Odwalla was founded..."
  • Done
  • Redundancy: "seven states and some parts of Canada."
  • Done

Nousernamesleft (talk) 00:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE NOTE Oppose: I had a FA candidate ruined because it used a copyrighted logo. Even though there were no free alternatives, the article gained heavy opposition for the use of the copyrighted logo. I think it would be EXTREMELY UNFAIR to pass this FA candidate when it clearly has the same issue as per using the company logo! Unless of course there is an admittance that WP is biased towards some articles for some reason? Also, I don't like the image positioning. Scrolling down the pages shows all the images to be on one side of the page. And the bacteria image is kind of small, doesn't really portray information effectively. Please also note that the same FA candidate that was rejected was opposed because of inappropriate image tagging, even though there were no such things evident on the page as all images were clearly tagged correctly. I'm very sorry, but as per this, this article shouldn't be able to pass when it clearly has the same possibility of being opposed for the same unfair reasons as the Croatian national team was. Domiy (talk) 04:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Commment - Your argument is faulty, Coca Cola was FA and it has a copyrighted logo included. Was there another reason that article failed in its nom? --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 06:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. I told them their unreal arguments were also faulty in the sense that I had fixed them up immediately after they were aroused. The article received a ridiculous amount of opposition (not just on this attempt, it has failed 3 times now). And it is clearly evident that it actually is based on preference. It gained no support whatsoever. I resolved all the issues and some of the intentionally un-satisfiable arguments were taken too heavily and hence the article failed. If its any more concern, there were also issues about reference reliability. I was asked to provide info as to why some certain references were reliable. I did so by providing the guidelines of the website and how they handle information which clearly proved them to be reliable. Racism isn't just physically or verbally violent, it strikes everywhere. I dont see why this article should be any more fairly treated than the Croatia national football team which failed continuously due to the same 'apparent' issues. I know they are not real issues and were aroused solely from preference, so I say now that this article is no more worthy than the next candidate seeing as a perfectly acceptable article previously failed numerous times based on unfair racial preference. Domiy (talk) 06:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image layout comment Images should be right aligned or alternated, personal preference isn't an MoS criterion afaik. If there is a better E. coli image replace it, otherwise I'd be inclined to lose it. jimfbleak (talk) 06:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the above oppose is actionable; the use of the logo is fine and justified. —Giggy 09:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen proposals of the type that the copyrighted Image:KFC logo-image.svg could be replaced with free Image:KFC2.jpg, so there may be some merit to Domiy's argument. It is certainly correct the image allignment is wrong, and should be alternated per Wikipedia:Picture_tutorial#Alternating_left_and_right_floats Fasach Nua (talk) 10:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:Images, Do not place left-aligned images directly below subsection-level (=== or greater) headings, as this disconnects the heading from the text it precedes. For him to place images on the left side would violate the guidelines, as the only place that they could be reasonably placed would be under the headings. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 17:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Yeah I did what Jeremy said, but I'm open to change! And I'm afraid I can't do anything about Domiy's oppose... it's the nature of national businesses to have copyrighted logos, etc. <:) Also, if I should remove the picture of E. coli, I will. I like it, but that's just me. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 18:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • While the argument is not invalid, how it was expressed sounds like a classic case of POINT. I suggest that you initiate discussion with the principal opposer(s) of your own FAC to have some form of centralized discussion instead as the way to go forward. - Mailer Diablo 00:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments on prose; (from Giggy)

  • "Soon afterwards, the company expanded into new markets when it bought two companies in the Pacific Northwest and Denver, Colorado" - repetition of company..... please try another word
  • Same again: "during the early years of the company allowed the company to expand and grow"
  • Some of the job titles in the Safety issues prior to the outbreak section are capitalised, some aren't... be consistent.
  • ""black rotten crud"),[11]" - the source doesn't include that quote

I also did some copyediting ([2]), it's looking pretty close to FA I think. —Giggy 09:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done. Thanks for the copyedit. I fixed the prose problems above. The "black rotten crud" is in the 11th ref (third page, 5th paragraph from the bottom, last sentence). :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 18:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okeys. That looks fine. So from my perspective...
Support. —Giggy 10:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A source which gives no indication of being a reliable source (referenceforbusiness.com) is still in the article, citing text that can surely be texted to a reliable source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More appropriately, I'm going to have to Oppose on the actual grounds that there is instability over a source that is used numerous times throughout the article (ReferenceforBussines). Also, some statements do lack appropriate references:

Note, this is a double oppose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • By 1992 the company employed 80 people at their company headquarters in Davenport, California and sold around 20 different flavors of juice for between $1.50 and $2.00 a pint. Odwalla went public in December 1993, and the company had 35 delivery trucks, almost 200 employees, and made about $13 million a year. - Source?
  • Continual growth and outside investments during these years allowed the company to expand and grow: in 1991, Odwalla's revenue was $9 million, but five years later, Odwalla Inc. made $59 million in sales - Source? (I dont know if this is sourced in the lengthy references at the end of the paragraph or not. If it is, please provide specific page number/location so it can be verified here.)

Some prose issues:

  • This strong growth made Odwalla one of the largest fresh-juice companies in America by 1996,[11] when Odwalla was selling their products to stores in seven states and parts of Canada.[5][12] - 'Strong' can be seen as POV. A more appropriate use of word would be 'rapid' or 'constant'. Strong is a blatant descriptive POV. Also, the name of the company is used too many times in this sentence. You should replace the second use of 'Odwalla' with 'they'.

Domiy (talk) 23:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Okay, I removed the referenceforbusiness ref and replaced them with refs from Hoovers.com and Answers.com, thanks to Jeremy. Anything else I can fix? Thanks for all the reviews and help, y'all! Intothewoods29 (talk) 16:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wait just a sec. Macrakis is doing some edits... :/ Thanks Intothewoods29 (talk) 17:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, now everything should be fine. Ignore the above text LOL. Anything else I need to fix now that I've removed the bad refs? :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 19:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Answers.com is not a reliable source, in fact, it mirrors Wiki. Hoovers.com is a subscription service. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...dang it. Haha I'll find a replacement for Answers.com. Hoovers is still alright, right? The page I used, [3] is free. Thanks for bearing with me. Intothewoods29 (talk) 21:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its quite acceptable to use subscription references providing, as you said, they are free. You may want to leave a note on the reference stating that subscription is required. Domiy (talk) 22:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Answers.com doesn't seem to be a wiki. It's more of a search engine, and it's won awards from CNET, Internet Explorer, The Software and Information Industry Association, Information Today, PC Magazine, and even Forbes! (See the bottom of this page). It's partnered with the Firefox, The New York Times, CBS, and Hoovers. There is a WikiAnswers search engine linked to Answers.com, but Answers.com isn't a wiki. Is that what you were looking at? Don't the citations at the bottom of the Answers.com ref ([4]) and the number of large media companies recommending it, per Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches#Websites, qualify it as a reliable source? I would think so. Intothewoods29 (talk) 22:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Answers.com does mirror Wikipedia in some instances, however in this case it has original, cited research by the author, Frederick C. Ingram. He has provided a full list of the references used in the creation of the article. Hoover's provides many free services that did not require a subscription, including information on financials and basic history of the company and a summary of its operations. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 03:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that acceptable SandyGeorgia and Domiy? Intothewoods29 (talk) 01:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need to check which portion of answers.com you're citing; when I checked, I found that the text in the article wasn't verified by the cite, so it wasn't clear to me what you were citing anyway. If answers.com cites their sources, you should go to those sources rather than rely on an iffy second-hand source. I can't answer because I couldn't verify the text you were citing anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've looked for some of the sources, but many of the ones that I need (because I'm dealing with history from the early 90s) are not online (for exampe, one article in the LA Times from Nov. 12, 1996 is archived and I can only get an abstract) but I'll keep looking. As for Hoovers, do I add a note about how the site needs a subscription even if the article I used doesn't need any subscription? Intothewoods29 (talk) 02:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the link in your cite is freely available to all, no note needed; if not, you can add "subscription required" in the format field of cite templates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References Comment - Publisher names shouldn't be in Italics. The cite template automatically displays all appropriate data in appropriate fields. In case you didn't realise, there is a 'work=' field avaliable in the cite template which allows you to identify where exactly on the site the information came from, and this data will be displayed automatically in italics. But there is no need to have all normal publisher info in italics. Additionally, some sources may lack author information! I was fortunate enough to click on a single source provided entitled 'Royal treatment from Odwalla'. The author's name is clearly displayed at the top of the article, Toops, Diane, so why is it not included in the reference? From this I can easily assume that some other sources may also lack author info. Go through all the references links and check for author names! If not given in the article, fine. But if they are present, then you must include them! Domiy (talk) 22:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC) Domiy (talk) 22:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response: I italicized the names of some of the publishers like the LA Times, because they're newspapers, etc., but I'll go unitalicize (?) the ones that don't need them. As for the stuff like BNET, am I correct in thinking that you want me to put BNET in the publisher= field and the original source (like Food & Drink Weekly or whatever) in the work= field? I don't want to start and then realize that I messed up and have to do it all over again? ;) As for the authors, I'll work on that... I thought I got all of them... oh well... Intothewoods29 (talk) 22:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ITALICS. Periodicals, newspapers, magazines are in italics; corporations, websites, organizations are not. Work italicizes, publisher does not. The last time I checked, most of them were correct; I haven't checked recently, but Domiy seems to be saying that periodicals are not italicized, which is incorrect. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So should I just move all the info in the Publisher fields that needs to be italicized to the work fields? Thanks Intothewoods29 (talk) 22:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Better to explore this on article talk, as I'm unclear if Domiy is confused. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I think I've addressed all of the concerns Domiy had (I hope) on Talk:Odwalla. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 15:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Domiy Supports now! Its only fair. The author/prime editor has gone through a lot of trouble throughout this FAC and to a great beneficial extent. This article is very specific to business terminology and a great use of research/resource. Nicely written as well. Well done. Domiy (talk) 06:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you thank you thank you! (Head explodes with happiness)! Oh wow... I think it's time for me to get some sleep... thank you again, tho. Intothewoods29 (talk) 06:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Maybe you should include an external links section on the page with a link to the Coca cola company and another to the Odwalla subsidiary. NancyHeise talk 05:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the comment. There was an external link section, but I removed it because the Odwalla website is in the infobox at the top. Also, the Odwalla site doesn't mention Coca-Cola at all... FYI SandyGeorgia, I've gotten added all of the citations for the Answers.com cite that are free and online and useful. A lot, like the Wall Street Journal and LA times, need a subscription, and some are only about the E. Coli outbreak, which is overcited. LOL Intothewoods29 (talk) 14:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I can access the LA Times and the WSJ at home; there should be no need to use answers.com if reputable newspapers can be cited. If you need a specific citation, pls leave the details on my talk page and I'll fill it in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. I absolutely agree that we should try to use newspapers. Let's get this FAC finished! :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 18:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DONE I hope. :) I think I've addressed everyone's concerns. I removed the unreliable refs, and double checked that all the info is sourced, which involved bringing in several new sources. Hoovers does not need a subscription tag on the ref, because it's a free webpage. The pictures all are tagged correctly. Anything else??? Thanks. Intothewoods29 (talk) 15:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - too bad you never got help from us at FAT. It could've been even better. Maybe. Excellently referenced, comprehensive, and therefore is FA material. —§unday His Grandiloquence 18:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. Yeah, so close, and yet so far. I think this FAC is just waiting for a response from Ealdgyth, who's on vacation. sigh... patience is not one of my best traits. ;) Intothewoods29 (talk) 18:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments History section could use some more content, in my opinion.
    • The history pre-outbreak is rather thin. Lots of description of growth, but no discussion on what actually caused this growth. Why did their juices catch on with consumers?
      • Added a part about that. :)
    • "The Odwalla plant had several minor food safety issues..." I wouldn't exactly call an outbreak of E. coli "minor". Or is this in reference to a certain timespan prior to the outbreak? If so, make this clear.
      • Yes, it's in the "Safety issues prior to the outbreak" section. I'm not sure how I could make it clearer... if you have any suggestions I'll change something.
    • "suggested that Odwalla" To whom?
      • changed to "suggested to Odwalla executives that the company should add..."
    • "Despite this, in cooperation with the F.D.A..." I don't get the use of this connector. Why is the recall in "despite" of the outbreak being a surprise?
      • changed to "Based on a recommendation from the F.D.A..."
    • "until phasing out Fresh Samantha in 2003." Phasing out meaning what? What were the consequences of this? Layoffs? Factory closings?
      • fixed to indicate that they just stopped selling juice under the name
    • "Odwalla was purchased by the Coca-Cola Company" This is rather eventful, but the paragraph breezes through it. Why did Odwalla pique Coke's interest and when? Why did Odwalla think this was a good idea? Also, why are four citations needed for the first sentence?
      • I fixed it and added a ref. :)
    • "450 millilitres (15 US fl oz) bottles made of recyclable HDPE plastic,[35] as well as larger 64 US fluid ounces (1.9 l)" Odd flipping of units. BuddingJournalist 06:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • done Thanks for your comments. I think I've fixed everything you brought up (I hope). As for the bottle measurements, I agree it's odd, but their sold in 450 mL and 64 fl ounce containers. It's one of those odd American metric ignorance peculiarities. :) If you have any more suggestions, please mention them. Intothewoods29 (talk) 19:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comments:
    • Could the food bars paragraph be beefed up? The statistic is kinda outdated now, and much of the content is duplicated from the e-coli aspect earlier in the article.
    • Looking through a print archive it looks like this article's comprehensiveness could be beefed up with some print sources. Make sure your email is set up, PM me and I'll send you some stuff I've found. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for reviewing. As for the food bar statistic, it was the most recent I could find! I went through all these SEC press releases, and the final one was released in 2001 right before the company was bought by Coca-Cola. I'll keep looking for anything, but no promises. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 03:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I'll assemble a packet of stuff I've found later today (I got classes now :P) Maybe you can state, then, that 2001 was the last year before they got bought, thus explaining why its the latest figure? "Before Coke bought Odwalla in 2001, food bars made up..." Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, I'm lazy and forgot about this, but I'll send you the stuff tomorrow (I'll remember, I swear!) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 03:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Odwalla&oldid=1168084107"