Talk:Pearson's Candy Company

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Pearson's Candy Company has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on January 9, 2008.
March 23, 2007 Good article nominee Listed

[edit] GA nominee first look

On first reading

  • references: why notes and not references. see WP:CITE and WP:RS
  • for international readers is it worth explaining the meaning of Candy in the article, and what it can mean elsewhere. This I would see as coming under notes.
  • Pearson's is among the top 100 global confectionery companies - referenced by an article that is not accessible to the reader and is dated 2003, is a later more accessible one available.
  • the today before Cadbury, I am not sure what is meant by it.
  • good info box, good images.

The first review seems to be full of do this; improve that, but that is I am afraid the nature of the beast. It is a subject I knew nothing about and now I do, it was informative and interesting, sometimes a difficult combination. On a personal note I would like to see a wider selection of references and ones that I as a reader can access. I will ask others to take a look. Well done you know how to put together an article for wikipedia, long may you edit. Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 20:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your comments:
    • That reference style is common: see section 4.5.3 of WP:CITE. Would changing "Bibliography" to"References" be helpful? To my knowledge, WP:RS does not address referencing styles.
    • Candy has so many types; an explicit explanation of candy would be unproductively long. Given that the Pearson's products vary greatly from one another, I thought to would be easiest to let the "description" field of the table define the products.
    • Unfortunately, industry surveys -- especially those covering such a large industry on a global scale -- are much like censuses in that performing them every year would be prohibitively expensive and wasteful (meaningful changes typically take several years to emerge). These surveys cost thousands of dollars per copy, so I'm afraid a more-easily accessible (i.e. online) version doesn't exist.
    • When the name dispute was on-going (1970s), the company that owned the "7-UP" trademark was the "American Bottling Company". The company has merged/acquired numerous times since then, thus the "today" referring to the current successor company holding the trademark ( Cadbury Schweppes).
    • Unlike public firms, privately-held companies don't have obligations to disclose any information whatsoever. That we have two magazine articles, an industry survey and three books, among other sources, is pretty amazing and quite broad sourcing - especially given this context. It's unfortunate that there are not more online sources, but books typically tend to be more reliable. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 20:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

part two:

  • references, agreed notes are acceptable just to me always seem short information.
  • Candy: I was thinking along the lines of candy (usa) generic word for (eg) sweets (uk) or something like that. A complete list would be an article in itself, (now there's a thought!)
  • surveys I appreciate (a good comparison with decade held census) what would be excellent is a wall street journal / financial times ref to the same statement, but...
  • today - maybe define as owner today or today held by ?
  • I agree with in relation to private companies (and some public when they can) references can be in short supply.

I will refer GA to another for a look. Thanks for the clarifications re references and the work. Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 07:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to add that I've found the list of Top 100 candy companies online if you'd like to update the reference: http://www.allbusiness.com/wholesale-trade/merchant-wholesalers-nondurable/448996-1.html Somno (talk) 03:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I've removed references to "candy" (except where it's part of a proper noun) in favour of "confectionery", which is more universal amongst English variants and, technically, a more appropriate word.
  • I added the name of the precursor company (American Bottling Company) to give "today" a more obvious context. I don't want to go too much further, though, as I think the current wording has a nice balance of brevity and informativeness; I don't want to violate summary style by getting too detailed about the unrelated soda stuff.
  • The Allbusiness link appears to be a highly truncated version and I don't know whether Allbusiness has rights to post it; this makes me slightly uncomfortable with it (per WP:COPYRIGHT, we shouldn't knowingly link to a copyvio). If you don't share the concern, however, I suppose I'm ok with adding the link as a convenience. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 13:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • What a dilemma, the link does show that Pearsons are in the top 100 (99th actually), but I can also understand ЭLСОВВОLД's concerns about the site. IMHO the link has to stay for the reader to be able to verify this important fact, using a scale that they will understand, and in some cases recognise other companies so compare. Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 19:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, the article does indeed say 99th. The link is added; I suppose readers are free to make their own determinations of legitimacy and, of course, can always go to a library to verify/access the complete version. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    after checking % against percentage I am happy.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    I would like where it is in the top 100 mentioned clearly as where it is is a valid point of information , but that is just me.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    well done thanks for the discussions and the learning. Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 22:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)