Talk:Burger King/GA2

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: RCSprinter123 (talk) 17:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This failed the last time, so lets see what's improved, shall we?
 * Plenty of advertising, grammar, spelling, etc... cleaned up by bots though... just a couple of IP edits...
 * I may give you this, but work a little harder and we'll have a discussion and see what happens, OK?
 * Good. - Rcsprinter Talk (Reviewer)

FEEL FREE TO COMMENT ON ANYTHING AND WE CAN WORK TOGETHER TO MAKE IT BETTER, A GOOD ARTICLE.

Checking against GA criteria
I think this might pass!

1. Well written:
 * a) I say is clear and concise, not much spelling/grammar mistakes, and anyway those will have been corrected by a bot;
 * b) It has a lead section, maybe a little long? Following the manual of style, maybe just pushing the boundaries a bit... No fiction, no proper lists, but layout is good.

2. Factually accuarate and verifiable:
 * a) Provides plenty of references in sections according to the guide to layout;
 * b) Plenty of references, from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;
 * c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:
 * a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;
 * b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Maybe!

4. Neutral:
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, but maybe a little bit of advertising slipped in there...

5. Stable
 * Not really changing, loads of bot edits, but not edit wars.

6. Illustrated by images - only 12 images on whole page including logo; but they are relevant to the topic and have suitable captions; all copyright and everything.

There are eight s and five s, so the majority speaks for itself! I'm not calling it yet though so do your best to correct the s and reply the discussion below.

RCSprinter123 (talk) 19:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments
Tell me what you feel needs to be corrected and I will get on it. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 20:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Corrections
 * Right then, well, the lead section needs shortening a little bit, maybe putting sentances in other paragraphs, deleting them altogether perhaps, just generally shortening.


 * You could also maybe stay right focused on the topic instead of wondering off... Of course, that may just have been expansion by other users, but it still needs working on.


 * I'm sure you have had a discussion on the history section before, but that was back in March, and it is still rather long when it has its own article (good providing the link though). A suitable History section for an article with its own history article should be about five lines long. It's getting all these points that make it a Good Article.


 * You could maybe add a few more images, at least one for each section, naturally making sure of all the copyright and so on and so forth.  Now, I'm thinking this article may be leaning slightly towards the biased, advertising side. If you can revert, correct and edit all of the above you'll be well on your way to a Good Article.
 * Rcsprinter (Reviewer) (Talk) 17:50 26 January 2011

Done...
 * I have now:
 * -Moved a paragraph of the lead section down,
 * -deleted most of the History section,
 * -corrected a few spelling mistakes.
 * So what still needs doing is:
 * -less advertising talk,
 * -more pictures
 * and then I will make it a good article. Cheers - Rcsprinter (Talk) - (Reviewer) 17:00 28 January 2011

Overall

 * Pass/Fail:
 * This article has passed to a Good Article! All the criteria are met and the disscussion is closed.
 * RCSprinter123 (talk) 19:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)