Talk:A&P/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Chris troutman (talk · contribs) 03:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

I intend to complete this review by the end of the week. By then I'll have identified anything that needs to be addressed and allow you opportunity to fix, if applicable. As this article has never been to WP:DYK, please either prepare your entry or let me know so I can exploit this opportunity. This article looks impressive and I'd like to get it more eyeballs should the review pass. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   There are a few bare URLs that need fixed as well as a problematic source that's unclear where it comes from. You should be using citation templates across the board to ensure accuracy. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:40, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   @FriarTuck1981: A definite problem I can see here is that a few books are cited but no page numbers were provided. (You nominated this article but appear to have made spare edits to it so perhaps you didn't notice.) I obtained the books from my local library and are combing through them now. The use of the Galbraith book is fine but I'm not sure how the others will look. Strictly speaking the criteria don't per se require page numbers for in-line citations but it makes no sense to cite an entire book without letting the reader know where. The Walsh and Levinson books are about A&P entirely so it's not as easy to use each book's index. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:21, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

   The Atlanta Business Chronicle piece says nothing about Family Mart. Find another source or remove the content. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:40, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

   The Ramey WSJ piece says nothing about Best Cellars. Please fix. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:06, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

   The northjersey.com source only establishes a bankruptcy in November of 2015, not that the company was Canadian-American. Page 69 of Levinson only establishes A&P was the largest grocery chain circa 1915; nothing else. The Final sale at first North Jersey Pathmark piece doesn't substantiate any of the details in the content. That source and everything tied ot it is questionable and there are a lot of specific claims therein. The Shanken citation says "nearly 300" locations so I don't know where you're getting the "296" number. Page 27 of Levinson clearly says "Nor is it true, as A&P later claimed, that the Great American Tea Company was renamed the Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company in 1869... the Great Atlantic & PAcific Tea Company was what was later called a "banner," not a company.". I made a correction to the text but I recommend you finesse it a little more. Chris Troutman (talk) 07:59, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

   Some of the details about George Huntington Hartford are wrong and unsupported by the cited source. I suspect the article about him is 50% fictional. Pages 69 and 70 in Levinson bear out the Cream of Wheat story but not the other details about the economy store; I recommend you cut that material or find another source. I started converting the books to Harvard reference. This is a formatting thing and not required which is why I did it myself; it's much cleaner and easier when citing many pages from books.

   The CBC source does not say that the purchase price was 1.7 Billion Canadian. I couldn't immediately find a source so I recommend you remove the claim. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:35, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

   The "our Company" source doesn't specify who held what shares of the company. I'd recommend you cut that. You still haven't put page numbers on the Walsh references; I'd appreciate if you could sort those out. There are also sources published in the 1970s that I'll bet you don't have. Further, what I'm guessing has happened is that someone saw those citations in a more recent publication and credited the original rather than where they found it. There are still many sentences without in-line citations. GA criteria does not require a citation for every sentence so I'm just mentioning it where there's information likely to be challenged. The table of store counts needs more citations, too. I want to keep the risk of sneaky vandalism close to zero. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:50, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

   C. It contains no original research:

   Nowhere in the FTC source (the summary, the complaint, the decision) does it claim A&P would have had a monopoly in the NYC area. The documents say there would have been reduced competition. Please reword. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:35, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

   I have an issue with the content under second chapter 11. There's a lot of talk of rumors and Chapter 7 and the cited source doesn't specify any of that. Please add citations or remove the material. I note the content about Acme and Albertson's isn't supported by sources. I've removed some other cruft that crept into the article. A lot of this is OR generated by fan blogs and the like. We can't have that here. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:50, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

   There's some OR in regards to Family Mart. I put a "citation needed" tag to draw attention to it. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   I'm not sure I buy the "A&P logo is too simple to be copyright so it's free" argument but I think it would be allowable under fair use, anyway. The non-free images are appropriately tagged and are small and low-res. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:21, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I'm growing concerned with the verifiability, which is why I placed this on hold. I'll let the hold last for up to 30 days after which I will likely fail the review if changes aren't made. You have two books cited but with no page numbers for me to check facts. I've spotted a couple online references that don't support the article's claims. There are several citations that need fixed and with the number of offline unavailable references you presumably expect me to AGF, I need every reference as close to correct as possible so I can verify. I'm not one of these drive-by wordsmiths that has you tweak formatting to get a GA rating. I'm checking to be sure the article is correct. I hope you were prepared for my fine-tooth comb approach. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:13, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

 In progress: @Chris troutman: I've begun the process with the books. I personally own the Anderson "Images of America" book and I found the Levison book online. After a LONG work week, i'm beginning the page numbering process. I also believe I got all the bare URL's... I'll continue to check. I replaced the ref for the Best Cellars with an appropriate one; deleted the ABJ ref. I appreciate the opportunity to do the changes. Thanks! FriarTuck1981 (talk) 09:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

@FriarTuck1981: Yes, I've noticed. Thanks to your edits I think I should have this article verified by Sunday and the review ought to be about finished not long after. I've got my stack of books here and will start going back through the sources in a couple days. Thanks! Chris Troutman (talk) 09:23, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: Ok, I think... I think i've got it all done. Please let me know if there's anything missing or anything additional needed. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by FriarTuck1981 (talk • contribs) 00:41, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

@FriarTuck1981: Yes, I apologize for the delay; real life has been insistent. I intend to get this review done this weekend although I already said that a week ago. Also, I'm aware of your pre-emptive DYK nom; I'll be sure to hit that once my review is completed. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:25, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: No worries on delay... I understand completely. Why do you think I was working on it at 2-3am lol. Appreciate the time and the DYK suggestion, even though it was rejected. Welp! Take care and enjoy the rest of your week. FriarTuck1981 (talk) 16:16, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

@FriarTuck1981: I've left more notes for you. The Thanksgiving break should afford me enough time to finally finish this. I'm finding more citation problems and I've fixed several just to save us both some time. I worry that a lot of this article has been cobbled together and the citations only cover bits and pieces of the content. Chris Troutman (talk) 09:50, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

• Inserted an addition to "In art, entertainment, and media" to include Netflix release of Don Delillo's novel White noise. Edits appreciated.D L Means (talk) 19:52, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Status query

User:Chris troutman, FriarTuck1981, where does this review stand? I see that Chris troutman added additional notes on this page through November 28 as well as a number of edits to the article itself, but I don't see any article activity by FriarTuck1981 since November 17, and no Wikipedia edits at all for the past three weeks. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: I've been waiting on FriarTuck1981 to act on my comments. My review is done otherwise. Since I took a lot of time with my review I thought it unfair to have the nominator rush. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Chris troutman, thanks for letting me know. Since it took over six months for this to be selected for reviewing—kudos to you for taking it on—giving extra leeway for the nominator to do the work is certainly appropriate. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Chris troutman, it's been another four weeks. I think you've been quite generous, but FriarTuck1981 is almost never editing these days: one edit this month, and three last month. The last time FriarTuck1981 edited this article was November 15, 2016. At this point, I'd recommended closing the nomination; it's been a full two months since you completed your comments, and that's a huge amount of time. This can always be renominated at some future date should FriarTuck1981 return to active editing and make the changes you've requested. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:25, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

• I'm failing this nomination. I've left talk page messages and I've e-mailed the nominator. They seem to have quit Wikipedia for the time being. All of the points under #2 need to be addressed. This is a decent article and I put a lot of my own effort into fixing problems the nominator should have addressed prior to nomination but it needs still more work to be a GA. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:28, 1 February 2017 (UTC)