Talk:History of Burger King

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleHistory of Burger King has been listed as one of the Agriculture, food and drink good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Did You KnowOn this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 1, 2014Good article nomineeNot listed
October 27, 2014Good article nomineeNot listed
November 10, 2014Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on December 8, 2014.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that in the 61-year history of Burger King, the company has changed ownership five times and had more than twenty CEOs?
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on December 4, 2012, and December 4, 2014.
Current status: Good article


Inaccurate statement about corporate tax being lower in US than Canada[edit]

Hi, Please see the following link, it doesn't seem to be true anymore: [1] 

Shahin911 (talk) 18:17, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.fraserinstitute.org/blogs/canada-has-completely-lost-its-business-tax-advantage-over-the-us

Scratch pad[edit]

Use of Answers.com[edit]

Per the previous review, the use of Answers.com as a general tertiary source is discouraged (see the history of this discussion in the WP:RS/N archives). However, the use of Answers.com as a convenience link to reliable sources may be acceptable in some instances. In this case, it is not needed because a more accurate version of the original company history is available at HighBeam, so one is forced to ask why Answers.com is being cited here. If it's being cited to self-reference Wikipedia, then it cannot be used. If it is being cited only to cite Gale, then the following reference may be acceptable in some instances:

"Burger King Corporation." International Directory of Company Histories, 56. St. James Press, 2004.

Do not cite "Funding Universe", "Answers.com", or even Ginger G. Rodriguez, as it has since been edited by Salamie and Stansell. If, on the other hand, this citation is being used to self-reference Wikipedia content included in the Answers.com page, then this GA nomination must be failed. Viriditas (talk) 04:34, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the link to Answers.com. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 09:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

March 2014 GA Review[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:History of Burger King/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Secret (talk · contribs) 19:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be reviewing this article sometime this week. Secret account 19:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm failing this article for a wide varity of reasons, especially comprehensiveness as I realized a bunch of the "key dates" is missing in the body of the text.

  • Nothing about the Whopper being launched in the early section, which is its most popular product.
  • "BK releases its first TV advertisement" - Not in body of text
  • "The company begins to expand through franchising." - Not in body of text, and an important concept in regards to the history.
  • Heavy use of [1] as a source, which is not a reliable source
  • The "key dates" section is heavily used from the source above, I don't know if that's close paraphasing or a copy of the Wikipedia section but still, very problematic - quick fail right there.
  • "Industry innovations" - nothing in the body of the text, just merge it.

I won't go on further but considering the questionable answers source/close paraphasing, I'm failing this article. Secret account 20:40, 1 April 2014 (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.

October 2014 GA Review[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:History of Burger King/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: StudiesWorld (talk · contribs) 19:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria[edit]

Good Article Status - Review Criteria
Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
    2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2] and
    (c) it contains no original research.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. [4]
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. [5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

Review[edit]

  1. Well-written:
    2. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) The reviewer has no notes here. Neutral Undetermined
    (b) (MoS) The reviewer has no notes here. Neutral Undetermined
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) The lead and part of 3G Capital require more references. On hold On hold
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) There are some primary sources and unreliable sources such as Answers.com that should be fixed. On hold On hold
    (c) (original research) The reviewer has no notes here. Neutral Undetermined
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) The reviewer has no notes here. Neutral Undetermined
    (b) (focused) The reviewer has no notes here. Neutral Undetermined
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
    5. Notes Result
    The reviewer has no notes here. Neutral Undetermined
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. Notes Result
    This article is currently stable. Pass Pass
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) All images are properly used. Pass Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) All images and captions are suitable for the article. Pass Pass

Result[edit]

Result Notes
On hold On hold Please fix 2A and 2B.

Discussion[edit]

Please add any related discussion here.

Additional notes[edit]

  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.


Questions[edit]

Hello, and thanks for reviewing the article!

1. What parts of the 3G section need further references?

2. Since the article is about a non-controversial subject, the lead really shouldn't need citations. However, If you would, please tell me which parts you find problematic so I can reword them to better reflect the content of the article, or reword the sections they refer in order to better align the two.

3. I fixed the answers.com link.

--Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 17:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I misread some things you fixed it.
  • Comment: Jerem43, StudiesWorld, after two weeks without any activity here, it looks like the review has been abandoned. Due to lack of activity from either of you, I might end up closing this review as unsuccessful. I'll check back in a few days and if there's been no progress, I will likely fail it. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:52, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm closing this as unsuccessful due to lack of activity from both the reviewer AND nominator. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:54, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? I have been bugging this guy for two+ weeks, trying to get him to respond. Instead of closing, why don't you take this over. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 04:43, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Since he's already left comments, it's probably best to start over with a new nomination. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:53, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • start it over. This second nomination sat for at least three months and I would like not to wait another three or four. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 05:08, 28 October 2014 (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.

GA Review[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:History of Burger King/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MrWooHoo (talk · contribs) 15:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I will be excited to be reviewing this article. I will use a format with a main review then a source and/or prose review (s) at the end. (For example: my most recent review)

Comments[edit]

Notes from previous 2 reviews[edit]

1st GA Review
1st Review
  • Nothing about the Whopper being launched in the early section, which is its most popular product.
It's there.  Done

"BK releases its first TV advertisement" - Not in body of text

Also in there.  Done

"The company begins to expand through franchising." - Not in body of text, and an important concept in regards to the history. Heavy use of [1] as a source, which is not a reliable source

Also in there, 1 isn't overused, and from the looks of it, is reliable.  Done

The "key dates" section is heavily used from the source above, I don't know if that's close paraphasing or a copy of the Wikipedia section but still, very problematic - quick fail right there.

Paraphrasing issue looks fixed.  Done

"Industry innovations" - nothing in the body of the text, just merge it.

 Done Good job with fixing what Secret commented.
2nd GA Review
2nd Review Don't need to list the points the reviewer gave you, as you already fixed them on the review itself.

Main Review[edit]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. From a first look, no glaring prose errors/copyvios, etc. Please see prose review for a more in-depth review of the prose. After the prose review, the article is polished in terms of prose.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Lead is summarizing the article, no "weasel words," etc.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. References are provided to all information in the article from a first look. More will be covered in the source review. References are all AOK.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). In line citations are correct, again more insight will be given in the source review. Same as above, all references are AOK.
2c. it contains no original research. No original research whatsoever, everything is referenced.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. All aspects are covered, and the article itself is broad.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Article doesn't look like it veers off topic.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. The article is neutral.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. The article/talk page itself doesn't look like it had any major edit wars/arguments.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. Images look good with valid fair use rationales, and copyright statuses correct.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Images are relavent, and captions are suitable.
7. Overall assessment. Article is now GA! Thank you @Jerem43: for being an awesome nominator :) Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 13:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prose Review[edit]

Note: If you have changed the sentence that needed to be corrected, press Enter and start off the line with ::, then use checkY or  Done If the change was only partially done use checkY, and ☒N or  Not done if the change could not occur. (If you would explain why, I would be greatly appreciated :P) To see code, go to edit source and copy the code.

  • Lead
"The two initiated a corporate restructuring of the chain; the first step was to rename the company Burger King."
How about saying, "...a corporate restructuring of the chain; the first step being to rename the company Burger King."
 Done - reasonable change --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 06:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • History Section
"It proved successful that, as they grew through franchising, they required all of their franchises to carry the device."
How about saying, "It proved so successful that, as they grew..."
 Done - I missed that typo, TYVM! --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 06:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"By 1959 the pair had stores..."
Add a comma after 1959.
 Done - Another missed typo, thank you. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 06:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(In 3G Capital subsection) "The proposed sale is expected to help the company repair its fundamental business structures and continue working to close the gap with McDonald's."
Change is to was in the first sentence.
 Done --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 06:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Seven of the top executives were released while another 261 employees..."
Add a comma after while.
checkY Partially done - That comma would go before "while." --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 06:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Timeline section
1953: Insta-Burger King is founded in Jacksonville, FL By Kieth Kramer and Matthew Burns.
Add comma after FL, and make the by lowercase.
 Done --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 07:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The deal between TPG and diageo nearly fails, but eventually goes through at US$1.6 billion (bn).
Capitalize Diageo.
 Done --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 07:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See comment in Comments section about this section.

Source Review[edit]

  1. Ref #33 -  Done - I removed the broken link as I cannot find an archive on Highbeam or other source. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 07:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Ref #34 -  Done - I corrected the broken link. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 08:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Ref #43 -  Done - The link is correct, I followed it to the article. Was it another link maybe? I found out, the link in article is differently numbered in the dab links page. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 08:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Ref #55 - Done - I corrected the broken link. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 09:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I went through the broken links and fixed all of them. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 09:01, 10 November 2014 (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.


External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of Burger King. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:00, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of Burger King. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:03, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee[edit]

if Tim Horton coffee was served at Burger King, I along with many, many more would be there daily. 2601:4C1:C580:D760:E5F2:6298:17F0:80F8 (talk) 21:36, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_Burger_King&oldid=1207550829"