Wikipedia:Peer review/Burger King legal issues/archive1

Burger King legal issues[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for August 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because after a recent FA review that resulted in the article not being promoted, I made several changes and fixes as well as had others review the article for structure and errors. I am hoping to have others review the article to see if there is any more that needs to be done before I renominate it.

Thanks, Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 23:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

I agree with most of the FAC complaints about this article - it is overly wordy and could be better organized. I would look at each FAC comment and try to make sure it had been addressed. I would ask for help with the prose from one of the copyeditors at WP:PRV. When several people think it is much improved, I would ask the FAC commenters to take a second look.
The article is titled Burger King legal issues so why is the Animal welfare section in the article? Is there a lawsuit in there I missed? Should the article be called Burger King legal issues and controversies instead? Same for the Labor and Islam sections. Why are they in this article?
I also fail to see the applicability of some of the information in the Infobox to this article - what does the percent increase in net income in 2007 over 2006 have to do with any of the rest of the article?
Provide context for the reader - for example the v. Hoots, v. Hungry Jacks, and Labor sections do not have the date in the first sentence. See WP:PCR
The article is very choppy and disconnected - what is the common thread besides the involvement of Burger King in all of these incidents? They are not all legal cases, they are not in chronological order, they do not seem to be grouped in some legal sense (but I am not a legal expert). This needs to be better organized and flow better.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

I don't understand, I didn't read that from their comments.
The article deals with legal issues, and not all legal issues involve lawsuits. It also covers areas such legal ethics, lawful business practices and legal compliance. Additionally matters of business ethics also fall under the aegis of legal issues. explanation:
1. The animal welfare section is about animal rights as well as contract law (BK changed their supplier contract format in response to the protests);
2. The nutrition section shows how the company complies with laws that have sprung up over the years, and how they have adapted their business practices to deal with them;
3. Labor is about compliance with labor laws and business ethics. The call for a congressional panel in the company's behavior is pretty serious unto itself with possible congressional action against the company being a pretty serious legal matter;
4. The Islamic section deals with international law, contractual law and the Islamic concept of Shariah. Shariah is the Islamic version 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.
The infobox is a header on all mainline Burger King related articles, that is to say those articles that deal specifically with the corporate operations of the company as a whole. See this discussion here.
Most dates are in the first two sentences, I think that works pretty well. If there is a MoS requirement, I can change that. I did add one to the BK v. HJ section.
The order is pretty much the way I typed it, I can clean that up.

--Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 22:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch replies

OK from the FAC here is jbmurray's problem example of two sentences from the lead:

"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." is now changed by adding two words (italicized)

"Situations involving a myriad of legal topics have affected all aspects of the company's operations. Depending on 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."

How is this better? How is it not still "both mangled and impossibly vague"?

I think most readers will think of lawsuits and being accused of lawbreaking as "legal issues" - the article needs to make it much clearer that contacts are also legal documents (and this still feels like a bit of a stretch). Ditto for the other points you raise above, make it clearer how they are legal issues and not just protests that got results. I still am not sure what some of the details in the infobox add to the article, but this has been settled already apparently. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reworded the lead some, how does it read now? --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 04:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it took me until now - I misread the note and thought you wanted me to reread the whole article. Anyway, the lead reads better and does a better job of setting the legal context for what follows. I did not reread the rest, but hope that the individual sections also do this consistently now. The other caveat I would raise is to avoid excessively flowery language - myriad (literally 10,000) is used once and seems a bit extreme. I also note that geopolotical conflagration seems a bit extreme in the dispute eventually erupted into a geopolitical conflagration involving Muslim and Jewish groups - more like a war than a squabble over a burger shop. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bilby's comments

I can only do this in small bursts, as I'm progressively going through and comparing all of the references against the text. I'll make any fixes I can as I go along. So far it is good, but as a couple of initial comments:

Animal welfare: The first two lines are unreferenced, although some of the later refs probably provide enough to support them. The majority of the references used in the first paragraph are also Peta press releases, which is probably ok, but makes me a tad concerned about NPOV. If there were more neutral refs it might work out better.
Nutrition: A few minor problems, which I fixed. The main one was the line: The company's statement went on to explain that it had always worked "to reduce the risk of illness provoked by an inadequate diet and to promote a balanced ... diet". This wasn't directly referenced, which it should have been, and there was nothing to suggest in the ref that it came from the same statement as the previous claim.

- Bilby (talk) 12:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IvoShandor comments OK, usually I scan the thing first and just write down whatever jumps out at me. Eventually I'll go through, make a few minor edits and make some more detailed notes.

First, I hate 4 paragraph leads, they make my head go boom!. But they aren't in breach of the MOS so you can take my comment here FWIW.
Dear lord, this is a daunting article. If there is any way to further break up the text, do it. I feel like I am looking at the long gray line as I scan down. No offense or anything, there may be no way to break it up but I can't help but think that the text is dense. Anyway, I am only scanning now, I will follow this up as I read more thoroughly. More images might be one way to help alleviate this feeling.
Any other see alsos? Maybe a few of the articles that are referred to at the head of sections could be moved down, perhaps the Burger King (Mattoon, Illinois) one?
A further reading section, with stuff not referenced or used in the ELs would be good. Has anyone written extensively and independently on this topic? Maybe there are some books out there?

Alright buddy, that's it for now. I worked all night, so I'm kinda in chill mode right now, mustn't overwhelm myself. I'll get on it though, don't worry. Hopefully I wasn't too harsh, these peer reviews can be jarring. --IvoShandor (talk) 14:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issue with the FAC as any subsequent expansion or changes to the article do not alter it's worthiness for a nomination as a featured article candidate. If anything , only enhances it. Petedavo ^talk^{contributions} 06:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]