Talk:Whopper/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 21:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review[edit]

  • I'm hungry so I'll take this one. I'll be posting my comments in the next 1-5 days. Best, ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 10:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, a very good article. It is comprehensive and seems to cover most of the major aspects of the topic. I made some copyedits as I went along reading the article, so please go back and see if I inadvertently made a mistake or if you disagree with any of my changes. Below are my concerns before the article passes. Thanks in advance for your work on this! ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 20:35, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction[edit]

 Done

  •  Fixed and its Australian franchise Hungry Jack's. – This is not cited anywhere in the article. It has to be found in the body paragraphs below per WP:LEAD.
  •  Done Additionally, the company uses the name in its high-end concept, the Whopper Bar. Additionally, its place in the marketplace has prompted its competitors, mainly McDonald's and Wendy's, to try to develop similar products designed to compete with it. – Try to introduce both sentences differently. Using additionally twice is redundant. Thanks.
  •  DoneSome of the early twenty-first century advertising programs, particularly in Europe, have drawn criticism for cultural insensitivity or misogyny. – Though European countries are mentioned in the Controversy section, it does not say they caused controversy when the ads were released in Germany, Britain, and Russia. The Texas Double Whooper was the most controversial one, apparently, and it gives no clear indication where it caused controversy.
    • I expanded those sections and cited it. It ads clarification to the controversies. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 08:12, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

 Done

  •  Fixed The first sentenced is not supported by the given citation (see: [1]) Please add a source that backs it up or remove it entirely.
  •  Done because he felt that it conveyed "imagery of something big" – The direct phrase from the source should be in quotation.
  •  Done For the first 10 years or so of its history - Change history to creation.
  •  Done For a short time after Burger King began moving to a fresh made model (certain sandwiches are made only after being ordered instead of being pre-made ahead of time), it used an aluminum foil wrapping similar toWendy's sandwich packaging. The packaging was changed again in 2012 when the company moved to half wrapped sandwich packaged in a paper board box – I may have misread it but the TIMES source does not mention the fresh-made model nor any of the details of the aluminum foil wrappings.

Competitive products[edit]

 Done

  •  Done Because of the wide knowledge of the Whopper in the public marketplace – I think the word popularity is better than knowledge in this sentence.
  •  Fixed the McLean Deluxe, the Big Xtra and theBig N' Tasty. – Deluxe and the Big Xtra are not mentioned in the given source.

Notable variants[edit]

 Done

  •  Done It was originally planned to be available for only 7 days starting on October 22, 2009. – The source was published on the 23rd and it says that it will be available for 7 days. How did you know it was available starting the 22th? That would need a source for that date.
  •  Done Due to their success in selling 6,000 sandwiches within the first 4 days – From what I read, the source says 10,000 in a little less than a week. There is no reference to 6,000 in four days.
  •  Fixed The Angry Whopper swaps jalapeños, "Angry Sauce" and "Angry Onions" for the pickles, ketchup and raw onions while adding pepper jack cheese and bacon – There is no clear reference in Source 26 (see: [2]) of the term Angry Whooper. There are other varients like Indy Whooper (which I think should be included too), but nothing with what is in the article. And considering that Source 27 is possibly not a reliable source, I think another source is needed.

Discontinued variants[edit]

 Done

  •  Fixed Can you add this archived source for ref 31? The link is dead.
    • I found another site with the link
  •  Fixed The introduction of the Chicken Whopper represented the company's first move to extend the Whopper brand name beyond beef based sandwiches since the original Whopper's introduction in the 1950s – The information is not supported by the archived reference.
    • The link above fixes the information
  •  Fixed The Quarter pound cheeseburger – A copy of the Quarter Pounder with ketchup, onions, pickle and mustard. – Sentence is incomplete and unreferenced.
    • I had to remove that section, BK did sell a quarter pounder clone several years ago but i cannot find the link. I know one is out there, I cited it in the Burger King products article but the article is not about the product specifically but an overview of the line it was part of.

Advertising[edit]

 Done

  •  Done Other slogans include It takes two hands to handle the Whopper and Burger King: Home of the Whopper – This is not in the given source.
    • The first one is one the first line in the link, I cited the other.
  •  Fixed The promotion had an image of a Whopper on channel 111, and for every 15 minutes the image remained on the TV a free Whopper coupon would be sent to the subscriber – Source says “ If you watch for five minutes, you get a free Whopper. Watch for 10 minutes, and you get two free Whoppers. And so on. “ The sentence does not imply this. Please revise.
    • I copy edited the sentence.
  •  Not done The Consumerist does not have the video anymore. Can you find it elsewhere and post it? It is not a requirement but it would be pretty nice to have it.
    • I am not inclined to look for it at this time, if I come across it I'll post it

Controversies[edit]

 Done

  •  Fixed Another problematic CP+B advertising program was the 2008 Texican Whopper commercial known as "The Little Mexican". A 2013 Russian advertising campaign made insinuated that the Whopper was better than heroin. – This sentence needs a source.
    • I fixed this with the edit mentioned above

BK Whopper Bar[edit]

 Done

  • Whopper Bars are kiosk-type stores – There is no reference to the kiosk-type stores in the given source.

Trademarks[edit]

 Done

  •  Fixed The name Whopper is a registered trademark of Burger King Holdings and is displayed with the ®-symbol in all markets it is sold. The name Whopper Jr. is a registered trademark in the US, Canada and Europe. – Source required.

Sources[edit]

  •  Done Replace Source 1 with this: [3]
  •  Not done Source 8 is a mirror of Wikipedia. This is not a reliable source.
    • #8 Has both original research as well as a mirror of the main space article. The Wikipedia mirror starts after the original research. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 08:37, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please fix the publisher on Source 27.
  • Is Source 27 a reliable source? It does not seem like a reliable advertising blog.
  •  Done For Source 32, please correct the spelling of Houston Chronicle and replace the link with this one: [6] Thanks.
  •  Done Please add this link [7] for Source 38. The one on the article is dead.
  •  Fixed Source 48 needs to be full. It lacks the date it was published and the author.

Subscription required sources[edit]

 Done Hey Jeremy, thanks for your contributions so far. I forgot to tell you that some of the sources you use require subscription and that you have to add a template for them. See Template:Subscription required for more details. Thanks. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 21:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a lot (if not all) of the concerns have been addressed. Is that correct, Jeremy? I'll take a look at it tomorrow to see the changes. Best, ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 11:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did all but one, the sources regarding #27 - I added some more references to the article to address your points and the numbers changed. I believe that the reference was to Nation's Restaurant News, but I am not sure. NRN is a major industry publication, and is considered reliable. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 20:17, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

Do you mind if I weigh in with a few comments? Farrtj (talk) 17:16, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
History

  •  Done Maybe it's a Br vs US English issue, but I find this sentence confusing: "sandwich was made with a plain roll, however, that changed when the company switched to a sesame-seeded bun in the early 1970s". Is a roll the same thing as a bun in America? I think it would be clearer if the word bun was used on both occasions? And is the only difference that sesame seeds were added?
  • Could we have a rough approximation of what the money figure in 1985 is worth today?
That's all I have to say! Farrtj (talk) 17:16, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article meets GA criteria. Congratulations! ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 03:10, 17 November 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Whopper/GA1&oldid=608874617"