Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Poundland/1

Poundland edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: delisted Neutrality issues have not been solved in the month and a half since this reassessment was initiated. Safiel (talk) 15:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is tagged with a neutrality tag in the "Business practice section" and I think it is well warrented. This section includes these sentences from sales strategy:

Poundland's biggest sales advantage is their price consistency across all products
While other retailers must decide upon the price of each individual product and have this clearly displayed to their customers, Poundland may simply move stock onto its shelves from their warehouses, so customers always know how much a product costs.
Although the retailer encountered initial scepticism from some suppliers worried about selling their top brands in a discount environment, this was quickly dispelled and the big brand suppliers now deal directly with the retailer
Suppliers can see the benefits to this strategy being that they know exactly where the products are going, the quantity being sold and the price the retailer is selling them at.

That is just in the first half of the first paragraph and I feel I could probably quote the whole section. It very much reads like an advertisement. The products offered section is not much better, with "The range will include a number of favourites that used to be found in the Woolworths' Pick n Mix selection" and "As well as their own brand line of products, the retailer also sells hundreds of products from other top brands such as Colgate, Walkers and Cadburys to name a few."

To me this reads too much like an advertisement to meet the neutrality requirements of a Good article. AIRcorn (talk) 12:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the GA status of this article is questionable. Many retail articles have suspected WP:COI issues, but they generally aren't GAs. The article is otherwise well written. --Ef80 (talk) 21:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I made a bunch of changes to the section here and here. --Odie5533 (talk) 17:16, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above claims do need to be sourced, but they are important, and not just fluff. Consumers want value, they also want brands. There should be coverage of these claims in the retail and financial press, if not in academic sources. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 13:03, 4 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]