Talk:Jersey Mike's Subs
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | ||||||||
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-class on the quality scale. | ||||||||
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale. |
||||||||
|
|||||||||
 |
This article is within the scope of the Business and Economics WikiProject. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale. | |
[edit] Quality of subs
Doesn't it seem like there should be some mention in the article that Jersey Mike's is known for it's very high quality fresh sandwiches, as opposed to Subway/Blimpie? It's hinted at, but isn't really mentioned explicitly. The higher quality is also apparent in the higher cost of Jersey Mike's combos. It's hard to get a combo for less than 7 bucks. As far as sandwich joints go, Jersey Mike's is near the top of the pack as far as freshness and quality goes. I know this kind of seems like a subjective topic, but just take a Jersey Mike's sub and put it next to a Blimpie or Subway sandwich - the difference is obvious. I'm not trying to advertise JM by saying this...I eat at Blimpie and Subway just as often. JM sandwiches are very notceiably stacked with more meat.
-
- While you may be right, Wikipedia is an objective website, and therefore any reference to Jersey Mike's being superior to any other sub shop would be subjective. You might be able to say that Jersey Mike's as a company strives to provide high quality sandwiches, but I'm not sure if that's objective or not. It sounds like advertising, so I'm thinking it isn't.98.203.152.108 (talk) 07:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC) aka Felixed
-
- I love their subs, but anything like that would have to be properly referenced to avoid being blatant advertising. Snowfire51 (talk) 07:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Spelling pro-ZHOOT
Someone keeps changing the Proscuittini meat into prosciutto. Its not prosciutto. Check the jersey mikes homepage for a source. I work at the place. I'm changing it back to Proscuittini --65.43.148.17
- I'm the guy that did that. When somebody changed it a while back from prosciutto to proscuittini I noticed the link had gone red, meaning there is no Wikipedia article for proscuittini. I wondered if maybe the article itself had it spelled wrong, so I asked Google.
meat + proscuittini —— 157 hits meat + prosciutto —— 677,000 hits
- Mike makes a great sammich but he's no speller. I have great respect for Mike so if that's the way he spells it on the menu I'll change Jersey Mike's Subs to redirect proscuittini (like that) to the right place and not have a red link. See you at the Sunoco station. :-) --CliffC 14:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Blatant Advertising?
I'm thinking this page is falling under WP:BLATANT, but I'd like to start some discussion before nominating it for deletion.Ravenmasterq 03:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- I certainly believe a rewrite is in order, as is a major infusion of sourcing. I'm guessing based on Firehouse Subs (which seems to be of similar size), this is probably a notable enough subject. Erechtheus 02:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Disagree... until you show where it's advertising. If your going to go around tagging pages atleast say where the problem in the article is. As far as I see... it gives a history, ingredients, and the subs you can get. I guessing the thing your getting upset is the menu. If the menu needs to be reworked... then remove it and leave a footnote. Thats the problem with wikipedia... users with a trigger finger delete articles that have decent content with just a few issues. Instead of a delete and rewrite... just correct the problem. The article has been untaged until further input is provided.
- Disagree. I just found the article today, and it seems to be okay. There are no out-of-the-ordinary claims, and the menu is part of the chain. Snowfire51 (talk) 07:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
