Talk:Edible Arrangements/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Aircorn (talk · contribs) 10:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Lead is too short. Needs a few more sentences to better summarise the article. Who is " VPF International Ltd" and "D.T. Hong Kong Ltd"; this section needs a bit of context. Spell out US. Cronologoy in history could be better (in 2011 should come after 2009). Bit US centric (i,e in the US and internationally should just be internationally). In what way was the Mumbai store serving as a model for the others. Repetition As of 2011, the company has over 1,110 franchisees worldwide. is mentioned in different sections. Don't use ® and TM.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Citation needed tags present, plus It was ranked number 42 on the 2012 Entrepreneur Franchise 500. It also ranked first in category in the Franchise 500 in the years 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 also needs a citation. Sponsership and awards is completely unreferenced.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   It seems very short, but sometimes there is not information available. I did a quick google news search and got quite a few hits, but none of the links I checked expanded too much on what was already here or were just store announcement openings. I would like to know more on what their product is. You mention it briefly in the lead, but it should have it's own section (everything in the lead should be mentioned in the body anyway). The external link could possibly add more info.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Am going to pass this. Some of the rankings and history seem a bit promotional and I thought the lawsuit was a bit undue. Ideally I would rather see it worked into another section unless it was a major issue. However overall I didn't get the impression it was leaning too far one way or the other.

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):

   No images and no suitable ones found at commons

7. Overall: Sorry I am going to fail this at this point. I think it needs quite a bit of work before it is at Good article standard. I would encourage you to address the issues raised above and renominate at a later date.

   Pass/Fail: