Wikipedia:Peer review/Burger King products/archive2

Burger King products[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 June 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I intend to nominate it to GA and would like some outside eyes to show me what it needs to become the best article it can be.

Thanks, Jeremy (blah blah) 19:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you have that infobox in the article? I think its enough to have it in the main article. --Skizzik^talk 20:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - the info box is included on all articles that were spun off of the main article as it grew. Minor articles do not include the infobox. --Jeremy (blah blah) 23:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I just think that an infobox about BK should not be included in any other article than just Burger King. Dunno if there are any guidelines about this. --Skizzik^talk 23:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - There was a deletion discussion about this shortly after the template was created. The consensus was that this an appropriate use of the template. --Jeremy (blah blah) 01:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I reviewed this before and, while it has improved, I still do not think it would pass GAN in its current state. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

Biggest problem I see is the lack of references (which was also noted in my previous review). For example in the Products section two of three paragraphs in Product packaging have no refs, the Iconography section has no refs, and most of the very listy rest of the section has no refs.
My guess is that there are reliable sources for much of this and the PDFs of the menus in various countries are probably the refs. These should be cited directly though, and the Notes should all have publisher and access dates since they are references too.
The language tends to be a bit repetitive, here's one random example: The Chili Cheese burger is a small hamburger topped with a hamburger patty, jalapeños and chili cheese sauce. It is part of the 99er (BK Germany's 99 cent menu) menu which also has the hamburger, cheeseburger, Chicken Nugget Burger, King Fries, small soft drink, small-sized cappucino and the King Sundae as available options. The Chili Cheese burger is available in Germany. The first sentence uses the word burger three times. The second sentence repeats menu twice. The last sentence is not really needed as we have already been told this is in Germany. How about something like this instead: The small Chili Cheese burger, available in Germany, is topped with jalapeños and chili cheese sauce. It is part of the 99er (BK Germany's 99 cent menu) which also includes the hamburger, cheeseburger, Chicken Nugget Burger, King Fries, small soft drink, small cappucino and the King Sundae.
There are lots of places where I would add dates - when describing menus it is clear that they change, so the items should say "As of June 2009...." or if something has been discontinued it would help to include when this happened, if known.
Since much of the article is about regional variations in the menu, I would include this in the photo captions, so BK Chicken Fries and sauce are sold only in North America and Italy.

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 _><>°^° 17:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]