Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wal-Mart/archive3

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 16:32, 20 December 2007.

---

Wal-Mart

previous FAC 1 | 2

Article promoted to WP:GA on April 20, 2007. Has recently underwent a copyedit by the League of Copyeditors in October, cleaning up many grammatical issues and other areas. I think at the time it's well-referenced and well-written, and should meet the featured article criteria. Article was once the target of a major edit war about two years ago, but this has pretty much subsided into the ancient history of wikipedia by now; it is very stable, other than minor cases of anonymous IP vandalism. Dr. Cash 06:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment I find the very first sentence somewhat peculiar. Fortune 500 doesn't say anything about the company being one of the worlds largest companies - only that it is the largest American company. For all we know there might be a thousand larger companies in the rest of the world. Wouldn't it make more sense to either say it is the largest American company or use another source?--Peter Andersen 22:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone point out a company that has a higher revenue or more employees than Wal-Mart?

Peter ^Isotalo 08:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Saudi Aramco comes to mind!--Peter Andersen 10:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Fortune magazine has two lists, a regular Fortune 500, as well as a Fortune Global 500 list, the latter of which covers the largest 500 corporations in the world by revenue. I've updated the reference in the article. Dr. Cash 05:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the sentence so that it clearly states that it is the largest public corporation in the world, which is what the Fortune Global 500 actually says. For the record I will also say that it worries me that it is apparently so hard to get such a simple fact correct - Is the rest of the article as sloppy with the facts?!--Peter Andersen 13:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comments:
  • In 2002, Wal-Mart was listed for the first time on the Fortune 500 list of the world's largest corporations - does this mean it was listed first for the first time? Surely it was on the list before 2002... just not in the #1 ranking. --W.marsh 14:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Sentence amended to more clearly state that Wal-Mart was listed at #1 (america's largest corporation). The list is the domestic fortune 500 list, not the global one. "In 2002, Wal-Mart was listed for the first time as America's largest corporation on the Fortune 500 list, with revenues of $219.8 billion and profits of $6.7 billion." Dr. Cash 05:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• • Apparently no mention of the common criticism of Wal*Mart about moving into towns and quickly putting most of the small, local shops out of business. Not a criticism I agree with for the record, but it was an important early part of Walmart criticism that still survives to some extent. I think it's notable enough for a mention.

This is actually covered in pretty excruciating detail in the Criticism of Wal-Mart article. But I've also added some details on this to this article now. It seems to fit best in the 'history' section, near where we're talking about the company's rapid growth. I've also added two more descriptive subsections to the history section to help separate some of this information a bit better for clarity. Dr. Cash 06:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• • The writing is just not very good... I know this is not actionable, but I'm usually the last person to complain about an article needing a copy edit. There seem to be a lot of sentences in the passive voice, with all kinds of weird phrases and fragments... they just make for a very cumbersome read. From the intro: "It is also the largest toy seller in the U.S., with an estimated 45% of the retail toy business, having surpassed Toys "R" Us in the late 1990s." also... with... having... all of these phrases just seem awkward to me. There's gotta be more direct way to say a lot of this stuff. I dunno. I'd support if someone copy edits this into easier readability. I know comments like this suck... sorry. --W.marsh 14:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I've removed mention of Toys R Us from the sentence you mentioned in the lead. For one, the sentence was rather awkward, and I don't think it's necessary in the lead; it is mentioned in the history section, specifically when it surpassed Toys R Us. I'll go through the article looking for other things to fix, but I'm not sure exactly what to look for. The article has undergone a pretty thorough copy edit by the LoCE, as well as others, fixing a lot of the grammar. Since I've been one of the primary editors on this article, I'm not sure if I'd be the best to spot some of these awkward sentences, since they may not be awkward to me, but I'll do my best. If you can provide some other examples to help, that would be appreciated. Dr. Cash 06:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I just went over the entire article, copyediting again. This time, I was mainly looking at some of these sentence structure and passive voice issues that you refer to. Hopefully, the article is a better and easier read now. Dr. Cash 05:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Weak support my concerns seem to have been addressed. Weak support because I haven't read the entire article since the recent edits, just looked at the diffs. --W.marsh 16:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support as it minimally meets criteria. The prose aren't quite brilliant throughout but are serviceable. It's a shame to see that the business model section isn't better developed and that the article hardly mentions Wal*Mart's recent doldrums expressed by spotty financial performance from 2005 to present. And what about the company's many retail innovations? Barely a peep about them in the article. Majoreditor (talk) 02:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Objection [organization] Why is Criticism not in it's own section? there is praise of wal-mart as well - for being a part of the US's cause for growth by standardizing, distributing, at a lower price meaning to a larger audience, etcetera.--Keerllston 13:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The criticism section, or more specifically, a section entitled 'criticism', was removed from the article several months ago in favor of following the guidelines under WP:CRITICISM (e.g. criticism sections are discouraged). Specific criticisms are integrated into other areas of the article, mostly under 'employee and labor relations', as well as in great detail in Criticism of Wal-Mart. Adding a 'praise' section would not be a good idea, as (a) it would very likely violate WP:NPOV, and (b) would almost certainly incite a flame war that you probably don't want to see. Plus, there's already plenty of "praise" in the article as it is (mainly read the history section, specifically under 'recent initiatives). Dr. Cash 14:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:criticism is not policy - I don't think it should be either - You can put it under "public opinion" or whatever you want if you dislike the heading name "criticism".--Keerllston 15:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

True, it isn't policy, but see what the Manual of Style has to say in the section on article structure:

Separating all the controversial aspects of a topic into a single section results in a very tortured form of writing, especially a back-and-forth dialogue between "proponents" and "opponents". It also creates a hierarchy of fact — the main passage is "true" and "undisputed", whereas the rest are "controversial" and therefore more likely to be false, an implication that may often be inappropriate. (Manual of Style)

"Criticism" sections are usually not the best way to structure an article. Majoreditor 18:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[Response to bureocraticness that doesn't address concerns--Keerllston 11:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)]No no no.... public opinion of wikipedia is not controversial information. Many people love it and many people don't. the MOS is talking about something completely and utterly different - having a section called "controversial".--Keerllston 09:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Since many of the topics in an encyclopedia will inevitably encounter controversy, editors should write in a manner that folds debates into the narrative rather than "distilling" them out into separate sections that ignore each other.

• Comment There is nothing in the lead that says what Wal-Mart stores are, fundamentally. I see "public corporation" and "utility or commercial employer"; it is alluded to as a "grocery retailer," but that's only part of their business; and we know they are a "toy seller." I think you need something along the lines of "Wal-Mart is an American public corporation that runs a chain of large, discount department stores..." Dylan 15:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• The prose could do with some tightening up. In the lead, it's easy to find things like this at the top:
  • "The company has been very successful with operations in South America and China, but sold its retail operations in South Korea and Germany in 2006 due to sustained losses and a highly competitive market." Make it:
  • "The company's operations in South America and China are highly successful, but it sold its retail operations in South Korea and Germany in 2006 due to sustained losses in highly competitive markets."
  • Lead: no hyphen after "-ly"—see MOS.
  • Subset terms doubled up: "Specific criticisms include the company's extensive foreign product sourcing, low rates of employee health insurance enrollment, resistance to union representation, and alleged sexism, among other things."
  • but called it "Walton's Five and Dime."—No, see MOS on punctuation in Quotations.
  • "a market price of $47"—was is exactly $47.00? The surrounding values are to one decimal point. Might be OK, but it does raise the question of precision (could be anywhere between $46.50 and $47.49).

Source #8 (the wal-mart timeline web page) just states $47, with no cents, and no extra precision. Dr. Cash 01:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I haven't gone further, but this suggests that a thorough run-through is required. This nomination might finally be ready for promotion then. Please don't correct just these issues. Bring on board someone new. Tony (talk) 01:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Tony was right about the need for a prose tightening-up. It seemed that "about" was never used when the monstrosity "approximately" could be used instead; and I changed the hilarious "a more affluent demographic" to "richer people" (which is all that it means, though I suspect that "people willing to spend more money" would be more accurate). And there was a lot of other stuff too. I've gone through it and fixed what I could (and incidentally stuck in a fair number of VAGUE and DUBIOUS tags and hidden comments on these) but somebody with a healthy disrespect for corporatespeak should print it out and go through it with a red pen. Not that the prose is bad; in fact it's excellent by Wikipedia standards. Morenoodles 10:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I disagree that "richer people" is any more accurate than what was there previously. One thing that I've always thought retailing articles lacked in general were more information on their target demographics, since it's a major part when considering where a unit gets built. "Affluent" usually refers to the middle-upper class, although I need to see the source to find out the context it is used in. Tuxide 00:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Tuxide on the "richer people" issue. "A more affluent demographic" is just simply better and more professional writing; "richer people" might be acceptable in a fifth grade essay,... Dr. Cash 22:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a chamber of commerce, so let's call a shovel a shovel. So what does "A more affluent demographic" actually mean? To me, it means "richer people". I could be wrong; persuade me that it means something else. It has nine syllables; "richer people" (if this does mean the same) has three: if "professional writing" is paid for by the syllable, then yes of course "A more affluent demographic" wins hands down. But to me it stinks of press-release-speak, designed to impress rather than to inform. WP isn't professional but instead amateur and sometimes the better for this. Morenoodles (talk) 07:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with just "middle-upper class" (and I know I'm making an assumption over context) since it's a demographics we're talking about? My argument against "richer people" is that it's way too ambiguous. Tuxide (talk) 08:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the term "middle-upper class". If it means "upper or middle class," then I'd guess plain "middle class" would be OK as the Maybach-driving classes would be unlikely to bother with Wal-Mart (though they might send their servants there). Morenoodles (talk) 05:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

"Upper-middle class", whatever it's called. See American middle class#The professional/managerial middle class; basically when I read "a more affluent demographic", to me it means the type of people Target Corporation goes after. Tuxide (talk) 05:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support Meets WP:WIAFA Alexfusco5 03:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• Still keen for the oddness to be ironed out. First things I happened on a minute ago were:
  • "By 2000, H. Lee Scott became President"—"By"? Like, 1999? 1998?
  • Remove "In fact", particularly at the start of a sentence.
  • "both positive and negative effects" twice in a paragraph.
  • Unresolved "vague" tag.

So that was in one section. Suggests that there are 20–30 glitches still to clear up. Tony (talk) 13:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• Object - There is no mention whatsoever of Wal-Mart's numerous anti-trust and anti-competitive lawsuits and criticism regarding anti-competitive behavior (merely a paragraph about how Wal-mart is sometimes seen as a threat to mom-and-pop stores). Although I don't expect an exhaustive section devoted to this (per WP:Undue weight), it needs to at least be mentioned in order to meet the comprehensiveness criteria for featured articles. There are numerous paragraphs on these issues (predatory pricing, manipulating suppliers through monopoly power, etc) in Criticism of Wal-Mart. Surely it is significant enough to at least warrant mentioning in the main article. For example, the Wal-Mart article mentions that Wal-Mart withdrew from Germany in 2006, but mentions nothing about the fact that Wal-mart lost a major anti-competitive practices lawsuit there in 2003 and was forced to change their pricing policies because of it (likely a significant reason for their withdrawal from Germany). Kaldari (talk) 01:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • What anti-trust and anti-competitive lawsuits and criticism regarding anti-competitive behavior?--Obsolete.fax (talk) 20:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Start of the history section could do with a little more context, like who Sam Walton was and his background. (i.e. Sam Walton, a businessman from ... "). CloudNine (talk) 11:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• My feeling is that this is nearly there, but still requires a thorough run-through by a good copy-editor. I took a sample in "Incorporation and growth".
  • Also begins a paragraph. No, that defies the very reason for starting a new para. Consider merging with the previous para (and the subsequent parastub); this would be on the long side, but I can't see how else to clean up the structure.
  • While we're on my hobby-horse, also, can you weed out the redundant instances throughout? The para starting "During the 1980s" has one redundant example and one necessary.
  • small-town shops—hyphen easier for our readers.
  • Logical punctuation after "locates"—see MOS on quotations. Tony (talk) 02:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• Update: previous comment's concerns not addressed--Keerllston 11:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose The specteculare failure to get a share of German market in 8 years which is due to the only 19 shops and the bad press due to the lost law suits because of: the contracts which forbide relationships with coworkers , the hotline for workers to denounce coworkers if thea where not following the rules News from the Tagesschau should be covered in more than two sentences.--Stone (talk) 15:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Just reading a few sections shows some obvious issues (not commenting on the comprehensiveness nor POV as I lack the knowledge base). I think that there are far too many copyediting issues at the moment and the reliance on web-references is worrying.
  • The "Incorporation and growth" section has five sucessive paragraphs starting "in <year>" or similar. There are poor phrases there like "Also in 1988", . Many sentences begin "in <year>" and this section reads like a dot-point list with the dots removed
  • For such a widely written about corporation, only two non-web references seem to be used.... according to google books there are over 300 on the subject. With web-only references it is hard to see how the article is not afflicted by recentism.
  • lots of bits of redundancy in the article
    • fifteen-member Board of Directors, which is elected annually by shareholders
    • Other members of the board include -> The board comprises (either this or "The board includes"). I've done a nose count and the entire 15-member board seems to be covered
    • Notable former members of the board -> Notable former board members
    • Unlike many other retailers,
    • Instead, they focus on selling more popular products and often pressure store managers to drop unpopular products in favor of more popular ones, as well as asking manufacturers to supply more popular products.... four populars, vague qualifier like "much", lots of repetitiveness/redundancy ?

  Try something like "They focus on selling popular products, pressuring store managers to drop unpopular ones". The bit about manufacturers does not add anything to the sentence

  • A factual/style issue - "In 2006, Wal-Mart was number 67 of the 100 largest corporations in terms of profitability (profits divided by total revenue), behind retailers Home Depot, Dell, and Target, and ahead of Costco and Kroger." Is this worldwide or just the US that they are 67th ? Surely "the 67th largest corporation" is better than "number 67 of the 100 largest corporations"

-Peripitus (Talk) 20:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.