Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Burger King legal issues/archive1

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 not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:14, 6 August 2008 [1].

Burger King legal issues[edit]

Nominator(s): Jeremy ( Blah blah...)


I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel that it meets the standards of FA. After a considerable amount of time and effort based upon feedback I received, I feel that it is well written, accurate and covers the subject thoroughly. Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 01:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Hard to get past the following couple of sentences: "Situations involving a myriad of topics have affected all aspects of the company. Depending upon its ownership and executive staff at the time, its responses to these challenges have ranged from a conciliatory dialog with its critics to a more aggressive opposition with questionable tactics and negative consequences.[2][3][4][5]" The first for English that is both mangled and impossibly vague; the second for its extravagant and unhelpful over-referencing. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What would you suggest to help improve it, how can I make it better? I am open to all comers. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 07:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cut the references, for a start. They're not needed in the lead, in any case. (I was going to do this myself, but they set up later references, so it would have taken me too long.) Then copy-edit, looking to ensure that your sentences feature concrete nouns and active verbs as far as possible. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 03:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'd suggest putting "Notable cases" (better section title than "Cases of note") after "Controversies." Go from the general to the specific. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems reasonable, done. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 03:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Are there any illustrations that you could space throughout the article? The middle feels like a wall of text. Plasticup T/C 19:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have not been able to find any non-free images to represent the various cases. I will research this, I can probably find one or two regarding the CIW dispute. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 20:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have added some additional images, but not allot. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 03:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Per the MOS, curly quotes shouldn't be used for block quotations.
  • Also, on my screen,, between the animal welfare and nutrition section is a HUGE amount of white space.
  • What does the little green triangle mean in the infobox?
  • I have a big concern with the titling of the article. It says "Legal issues" but the first section is on controversies that appear to have little to do with legal issues. Certainly, protests aren't legal issues in a strict sense of the word.
  • Current ref 66 Chrisopher D. Pelosos "Burger King v Rudzewicz" what makes this a reliable source?
  • The first two notes are just titled links. Should you be giving some context for them?
  • There are three dead links with the link checker tool.
Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool (except where noted above) Ealdgyth - Talk 12:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply:
  • I changed that.
  • I included a {{blank}} there because of issues of the images running into the next section, it can be removed if required.
that one I'll leave up to the MOS experts out there. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another editor fixed the white space issue by moving a picture. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 16:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is {{increase}} {Increase), along with {{decrease}} (Decrease) and {{steady}} (Steady) are used in the {{infobox company}} (which is what the box is based on) template to show profit, loss or flat revenue over the previous years financial statements. It is fairly standard from what I have seen.
Shouldn't there be a key/guide to explain that to the reader though? Ealdgyth - Talk 18:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that would need to be taken up at the {{infobox company}} page. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 03:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I made some changes per usage instructions for {{Infobox company}} about usage of the profit, loss and steady templates. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 16:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the controversies I chose instances where there was a legal outcome, like a contract, binding agreement or in the CIW case a threat of a congressional inquiries, as a result of the dispute or where there was a legal question that did not involve a lawsuit. The only section that initially appears to have no legal implications is the ice cream label incident, however the reason I included this is because in the Islamic faith there is the concept of Shariah. Shariah is the Islamic concept of canon law, or the legal framework within which the public and private aspects of life are regulated for those living in a legal system based on Islamic principles of jurisprudence and for Muslims living outside the domain (from the article). For those offended, they truly feel that the perceived blasphemy that occurred was also a crime under the precepts of Shariah. Since Muslims make up a sixth of the global population, this could have huge implications for the company as it expands in the Mideast; in some countries, such as Saudi Arabia, the company could theoretically be tried for heresy because Shariah is the law.
I'm still not seeing anything involving PETA that involves a contract anything that mentions legal proceedings. The only thing that comes close is that BK instituted procedures to make sure its suppliers were adhering to animal welfare regulations. However, I'm not sure that qualifies as a "legal" matter, honestly. I'm not going to necessarily oppose based on this, but it does raise some NPOV issues in my mind. Especially as it is the first section in the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It defines the contractual requirements that suppliers must agree to in order to do business with BK, ie Contractual law. The PETA section is first because I just happened to write that first, no other reason. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 03:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I made some small changes that clarify the legal aspects, specifically animal rights and contractual frame works. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 16:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I spoke with Mr. Poloso and he explained that this was not his original work but an online version of the class notes of the corporate law course he was taking at the time.
Then I have to say that it's not a reliable source at all. Needs to be replaced.
I have made a request at WP:LAW for assistance in updating this citation.--Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 18:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have found an excellent reference that provides significant history and details of the case that more than satisfies the WP:RS standards, and have removed the instances of Peloso as well as expand the section a bit. One or two more paragraphs and this section will be completed. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 19:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Finished --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 17:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is how the Australian legal system lists cases from what I have read, I tried not to add anything which might compromise the information because I am not a lawyer or Australian and cannot comment beyond that.
Might ask someone who works on Australian articles how best to format them then.Ealdgyth - Talk 18:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will ask over there. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 03:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have made a request for assistance at WP:AUSLAW for help insuring accuracy of the section. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 18:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One of the members of WP:AUSLAW has recently completed an article about the case and will be editing the section to insure it is factually correct and is properly cited. I did add a case name to the two citations. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 16:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will try to fix the dead links, the News-Press now moves older articles to a paid for archive which it started doing in May or June of this year from what I have read.
I repaired or replaced all inactive links. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 16:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
--Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 18:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I haven't had a chance to go over all of the article, but I sampled a section and I'm a tad concerned that not all of the claims are sufficiently referenced. (I know that may seem odd, as the article has a goodly number of references, but bear with me). For example:
    • In "Burger King Corporation v. Hungry Jack's Pty Limited", the claim "When Burger King moved to expand its operations into Australia, it found that its business name was already trademarked by [a] takeaway food shop in Queensland" isn't supported by the reference for that paragraph, "Restaurant Business News", (which makes no claim about the location of the shop), and is, in fact, false: the shop concerned was in Adelaide, as per Terry, A. (2008) Where's the Beef? Why Burger King Is Hungry Jack's in Australia and Other Complications in Building a Global Franchise Brand, Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business 28:2.
    • In the following paragraph there are three references, none of which fully support the claim "In 1991, Hungry Jack's renewed its franchise agreement with then BK parent Burger King Corporation which allowed the Hungry Jack's to license third party franchisee." I think the references are close, but the only date I can find is 1990, not 1991. That should be an easy fix, though.
    • Later, in the same section, there's: "After Burger King Corporation lost the case, it decided to terminate its operations in the country and sold its assets to its New Zealand franchise group, Trans-Pacific Foods (TPF)". The reference given, "Hungry Jack's to replace BK brand in Australia", doesn't mention Trans-Pacific Foods nor New Zealand, and the statement to which it is directly attached, "An additional part of the agreement required Burger King Corporation to provide administrative and advertising support as to insure a common marketing scheme for the company and its products", isn't seemingly supported by the reference at all.
It might be worth going through to make sure that the references support all of the paragraphs where they are used. I might have just stumbled across the only section with problems (I'm from Adelaide, so the Queensland reference caught my eye), and if I get time I'll look a bit harder to see if I can help spot more specific problems that can be addressed. Certainly I doubt that the facts are wrong (other than the Queensland one, of course), so getting correct references shouldn't be too hard (the Terry article, for example, is a good one), but I can't really support it as it stands. - Bilby (talk) 13:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply
    • I fixed the the city to Adelaide and added a reference to the article. Is there a free online source I could quote from? I would love to read the article.
    • Date fixed.
    • Found a reference for that, I also came across some other stuff that will bolster this.
--Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 16:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. :) Once I finish some work I'll have a look and see if I can help with any other referencing issues, should there be any. I don't know if there is a free version of the article, but it is 44 pages of reference goodness, so I'll do what I can with it for you. - Bilby (talk) 12:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not exactly sure that the history of the Hungry Jack's issue is entirely accurate. Being from Perth Western Australia, I had some recollection of a certain WA Politician having registered the names of famous American brands in Australia back in the 1950-1960's with the aim of making them 'pay him off' if they ever wanted to come to WA. Macdonalds for instance never came to Perth until this registration expired thus Macdonalds wasn't in Perth until only recently. Burger King I assumed was in the same boat so the company that set up Hungry Jack's and Kentucky Fried Chicken in south Africa and Perth was formed and circumvented the trade mark registration with the Politician back in the 1970's. The first Hungry Jack's store being opened in Dog Swamp around 1970. The Western Australian and South African franchises are separate entities to the Eastern states and therefore sell a different brand of Cola etc than the eastern seaboard franchises in Australia. I might be wrong, but this story is a common urban myth in Perth if it is, and an article of the particular politician and this episode was in the Perth Newspaper only a decade or so ago, stating this as fact. Petedavo talk contributions 12:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note - I just want to let you all know that the references in the other sections were gone through during the GA nom. User:JimDunning did a pretty comprehensive sweep of the article and pointed out many of the errors and inconsistencies. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 22:55, 29 July 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/Burger_King_legal_issues/archive1&oldid=1138456689"