Wikipedia:Peer review/Burger King franchises/archive1

Burger King franchises

• 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 June 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i need help improving it to GA status. I know it needs work but I need help from my peers to make it the best it can be.

Thanks, Jeremy (blah blah) 19:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I hope I can help you to reach your goal. So far I have only looked at the lead and the first half of the History section, but there is enough to be going on with.

• Lead
  • The opening sentence should be rewritten closer to the requirements of WP:LEAD. In particular: The article should begin with a short declarative sentence, answering two questions for the nonspecialist reader: "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable?"
  • The phrases in bolded characters should be unbolded, in accordance with WP:MOSBOLD Fixed
  • Non-breaking spaces need to be introduced, per WP:NBSP, for 11,500 outlets, 71 countries etc
  • Second sentence of the lead needs repunctuating. The comma after "geographic territory" should be replaced by a semicolon. Or, better, split the sentence at this point. Fixed
  • I am confused by the figures at the start of paragraph 2. "11,550 outlets in 71 countries; 66% are in the United States and 90% are privately owned and operated." That I can understand; the company itself operates the other 10% of outlets, approx. 1,150. But: "The company has more than 37,000 employees serving approximately 11.4 million customers daily." Do these figures relate only to the outlets owned by the company? Both figures seem quite high for 1,150 outlets.  Fixed Clarified statement - each store has about 30-40 employees, so 35k+ is right on target
  • You have included the description of master franchises in each of the lead's two paragraphs. The information only needs to be given once.  Fixed

I have done a basic rewrite of the lead, it reads better but needs some work. --Jeremy (blah blah) 07:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• History
  • You need to formally identify the initials BKC with the corporation  Fixed Removed abbreviations
  • "the company...", "the corporation..." – best to use one or the other rather than both.  Fixed settled on the company
  • Not "Mr Smith", just "Smith"  Fixed
  • "...and prevented larger franchises from challenging Burger King Corporation as Chart House had." This won't mean anything to the general reader; therefore a sentence or two of explanation is necessary.  Fixed Rewrote sentance
  • Awkward phrasing: "Smith also sought to have BKC be the primary owner of new locations..." This is one example of wording that needs attention. In this case, "Smith also required that BKC be the primary owner of new locations..." might do. But I think (as indeed would most Wikipedia articles, including my own!)  Fixed Rewrote sentance
  • Sudden reference to "BKC parent Pillsbury". While the article is not about the ownership of the Burger King Corporation, some prior reference, preferably in the lead, should indicate that the corporation has been owned by a series of holding companies, otherwise the names don't mean anything to the reader.  Fixed Added earlier reference

I will be happy to carry on with the review when you have addressed these points. As I can't watch all my peer reviews, please ping my talkpage when you are ready for me to continue. Brianboulton (talk) 23:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Note: you have struck my comment that "the article as a whole would benefit from a complete copyedit." Does this mwan that this copyedit has taken place? I will try and fnish the review today as I am away for most of the coming week. Brianboulton (talk) 07:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I did a pretty good copy edit of most of the edit, but it was not as thorough as it could have been. I mainly clarified some statements, removed duplicate wording and standardized some terminology. --Jeremy (blah blah) 07:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Continuing the review

• History, continued
  • Fifth paragraph: "store" should be "stores"
  • "three-quarters of a billion dollars", written out, looks cumbersome. Elsewhere you have used numeric amounts, so why not "$750 million"?
  • "which", rather than "who" were in financial distress
  • This description: "a program to address the financial issues facing BK's financially distressed franchisees" might be redundant, since you describe the function of the initiative in the next sentence.
  • "a bargain basement price of $16 million, or approximately 88% of their original value." Why is 88% of the original value described as a bargain basement price? It's a 12% discount, no big deal. Or do you actually mean that the original price was discounted by 88%?
  • What was "the new company"?
  • "completely" revamped - the adjective is unnecessary
  • Refer to "Cabrerra", not "Mr Cabrerra"
• Relations
  • "put forth a plan" sounds archaic, almost biblcal. Try "announced a plan"
  • New York Stock Exchange should be written out in full, at first mention
  • Very clumsy wording: "would not be put into helping bolster the then flagging BK," Possibly "would not be used to help bolster the then flagging BK"
  • "In a 2005 dispute with its the NFA..." Something wrong here?
  • "in regard to" not "in regards to" (occurs twice)
  • Wrong use of italics (many instances..." etc). If this is a quote it should be in quote marks; it should not be italicised. The information needs to be cited to a source. (Same italics issue later in the paragraph)
  • No need to specify USD
  • "In a response, the NFA chairman Daniel Fitzpatrick responded..." Obvious redundancy here.

• Australia
  • Overlong sentence: "From the 1980s onwards, Burger King had increased its interest in the operations of Hungry Jack's, leading to a number of disputes which prompted alterations to the franchise agreements in 1986, 1989, and again late in 1990 with the completion of four new agreements relating to different aspects of Hungry Jack's activities." This tendency towards long, winding sentences needs checking through the article.
  • "attempted" might be a better word than the old-fashioned "purported"

Sorry I don't have time to continue with this very detailed review into the final sections. In summary, there are grammar, prose and punctuation issues in the article which need to be sorted out; You really need to find an independent editor with a good feel for prose to go through the entire article. I have done my best on the sections I've examined, but I don't think I've picked up everything. Away from prose, the reliability of some of your sources may be questioned, e.g. Answers and Hoovers. Good luck with it. Brianboulton (talk) 19:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)