Talk:99p Stores/GA1

GA Review

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

The structure seems ok, there is a lot of information and it seems well-sourced. However, I have some major have concerns about the article's style. There is too much weasel wording and excessive detail, and the general picture remains confusing. Although the article contains a lot of info, I did not get a good general picture after reading it.

Some specific examples:

When inflation pushes up prices beyond what the company are able to pay, this is often easily worked around by reducing the quantity supplied in each item, such as reducing the amount of tape on selotape or selling eggs by the dozen instead of 18s. - What does this have to do with the company's sales strategy? The connection is unclear.

Nadir's son and buying director Faisal, who takes care of the day-to-day running, notes that the lowest margin he will work with is 20 percent. - Excessive detail. Can we not replace this with just "the company aims for a margin of at least 20%"? Such general statements should be used more, instead of excessive detail.

The retailer offers a large range of products in its 3,500 lines, from "Do it yourself" (DIY) and electrical to toys and stationary products. - I'm not happy with this wording. What is "do it yourself" and what are "stationary products"? I believe this should be explained. Also, "a large range of products" compared to what?

Some products have also sold less than 99p, such as branded cakes for 69p and 2-litre (1.8 imp qt) bottles of soft drinks for 89p. Their best seller is the 250-gram (8.8 oz) Galaxy chocolate bar. - Excessive detail. I do not think this is encylopaedic, since Wikipedia is not a product catalogue.

Buying director Faisal Lalani cited one of their main aims is to catch up with Poundland and their 223 stores as of August 2009. Lalani makes it a point of honour to undercut rival Poundland, whose £1 pack of 100 white plastic cups contained 20 less (and cost a penny more) than the pack of 120 available at 99p Stores as of late 2007. - Excessive detail. Why do we have to mention the name of the person giving these statements in so many places? If the information isn't controversial, we should just use "the company has said that..."

In December 2009, Eastleigh news reported that a new discount shop had established itself next door to a 99p Stores outlet, but instead selling all their products for 89p, undercutting the retailer by 10 pence. This will be a new experience for the 99p Stores outlet in Eastleigh as when they first opened, they suceeded in undercutting the two existing discount stores "The Stockmarket" and "T.M Stores", to the extent that both shops closed down within months. The manager of the new 89p shop disagrees that this a business model which can only prosper in a recession, stating "this is a business for any time, people love value for money". The 89p shop was the 2nd branch to be opened, the first being in Poole, Dorset. - Is this really significant enough to be included in the article? There is also some weasel wording ("This will be a new experience...") I would suggest getting rid of this whole paragraph.

There are many other examples. I do not think the article meets GA criteria yet. Since the mentioned problems are present in almost every chapter, the article would need require a relatively large amount of work to pass, therefore "fail" is better than "on hold."

Reviewer: Offliner (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]