Jump to content

Talk:A&P/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:A&P
(Redirected from Talk:A&P/Archives/2019)
Archive 1

Removed assertion

After the removal of the comparissons with Wal-Mart and the precis, this is left: "...with 80% of the supermarket business [in the 20s and 30s]." Any source for this? Mr. Jones 18:50, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Remove quote or add citation

I could not find the newspaper from which this quote was obtained. Also the discussion of the Hartford's private life would seem more proper on another page. I am copying the deleted para here so it can be returned if a citation is found.

When John Hartford passed away on September 20, 1951, the newspapers wrote "In the death of 'Mr. John' there passes a Retail Napoleon...He had a Grocery Empire as Ford had an Automobile Empire, Rockefeller an oil empire, Carnegie a steel empire. John Hartford belonged to a little group of Americans whose energy and vision made us the most prosperous nation in the world. He pioneered in foodstuffs just as Henry Ford did in transportation. Their philosophy was blunt and simple, just as works of genius are simple "Sell more for less." George and John's nephew and heir (since they had no children) Huntington Hartford was born famous as the A&P Heir, America's golden boy. At Harvard the tabloids wrote he was "the richest College boy in the world". He became a world famous figure in the sixties developing Paradise Island in the Bahamas and publishing a magazine and building a museum but only worked at the A&P for one year where his uncles put him to work counting loaves of bread. His uncle John fired him when he took off half a day work to watch a Yale Harvard football game; nevertheless, John and Huntington were close. John Hartford left part of his wealth to the John Hartford Foundation which was at one time the largest in America for geriatric care, as of 2004 John Hartford Foundation had 541,082,590. million in net assets.

--Tinned Elk 22:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Aptealogo.jpg

Image:Aptealogo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Divisional structure and own brands.

A&P has gone through several restructurings in the past decade or so.

All traditional banners/divisions have been merged into "fresh" stores. This would be A&P/SuperFresh/Waldbaum's (including Foodmart).

Food Basics is now the "Discount" division.

The Food Emporium is the "Gourmet" division--NY City stores--Suburb stores are being converted into A&P Fresh stores for the most part.

Recently purchased PathMark is the "Price impact" division

SuperFresh stores being converted to PathMark are another division

The Liquor stores are split between legacy stores and Best Cellars.

Own Brands/On Point Inc. (Private Label Discussion) and the Main office round out the rest of the company.

The legacy divisions of A&P NY, A&P NJ, Foodmart New England, SuperFresh North, SuperFresh South, Waldbaum's West, Waldbaum's East is a thing of the past.

Also, I don't feel like writing up the recent changes properly to the Private Labels. But here's the basics of what happened (no references other than knowledge)

Until Recently:

Side of package read "distributed by Compass Foods, Inc." prior to the sale of Eight O'Clock Coffee; wording was changed to "Distributed by the Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., Inc."

Savings Plus (low end, but very inexpensive)

America's Choice (General store brand)

Health Pride (HBC/GM)

Simply Kids (Baby products-introduced a couple years ago as a pilot for more recent changes)

Master Choice (gourmet, upscale, specialty, italian, organic, etc.)

(PathMark brand in those [recently purchased] stores, being phased out for standard A&P brands)


The new brands:

Side of package reads "Distributed by OnPoint, Inc." (although old Compass/GAPTea labels are still out there if you look hard enough)

Smart Price (Savings Plus renamed-even "SP" initials stayed the same)

America's Choce (General store brand)

Sub Brands of AC:

America's Choice Kids (the AC is small-emphasis in logo on "Kids") Cereal, Granola, PB&J etc.

America's Choice Preferred Pet (again de-emphasized AC, the PP part is what stands out

America's Choice Gold Quality (Using the new A* logo reads as A* Gold Quality)--(High end but not gourmet)

America's Choice Gold Quality for Kids (A* Gold Quality logo + AC Kids logo from above) replaced Simply Kids for baby stuff.

Replacing Health Pride:

America's Choice

Spa Market (Beauty end of Healty & Beauty Care)

Live Better (not 100% sure yet what's LB and what's AC, may be semi-arbitrary)

Replacing Master Choice: (encompassed too much-no brand identity)

America's Choice/ AC Gold (items that don't fit the bellow)

Hartford Reserve (Gourmet)

Green Way (Organic food, Natural Household, Ecofriendly)

Via Roma (Italian-Pasta, Sauce, Olive Oil, Vinegar, Perishable Dept Pizza, canoli's, etc.)

The new non-AC items have real attractive packaging, and look like they are name/national brands-with quality to back them up, but still priced better than similar national brands.

some categories (pasta for instance) have or will have as many as four different private labels to go head to head with all tiers of national branding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.62.114.95 (talk) 04:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Economy store

Quote: In 1912, the first A&P Economy Store opened, a grocery store format that allowed cost-cutting and standardized layout, increasing their store numbers to 1600 by 1915.

So, what did that innovation consist of? A&P had stores before, what was so new about their "Economy Store" that sparked off their massive success? Thanks, Maikel (talk) 12:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Early history

The "early history" section is far too short. One moment they're selling tea by mail-order from a store in Manhattan (?), next they're the market giant. Maikel (talk) 12:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

A&P liquor-stores in Virginia?

It states that: "A&P's liquor stores, known as Best Cellars, are located in Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Virginia", but all Virginia liquor-stores are state-owned. The reference cited only states that the The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company (A&P) operates in Virginia, which is most likely referring to its grocery stores.

68.242.204.239 (talk) 17:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)Moi

Also, there's the fact that there are such things as New Jersey Best Cellars stores, makes me think the line needs to be changed outright. oknazevad (talk) 22:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Woodson & James

Anybody else notice that Woodson (&) James are the middle and last name of an infamous Wild West personality? (Woodson & James' meat products are A&P's latest attempt to turn this iconic company around.) 207.210.134.83 (talk) 14:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Table of store dispositions - separation of state into a column

Unfortunate that the State and Municipality columns have been merged. I think it is quite useful to be able to sort by state to see the impact on particular states. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 10:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

"Rise and decline in number of stores"

I wonder if the chart in this section could float somewhere else in the article with a caption offering an explanation, instead of existing as a standalone section, creating a lot of white space in the process. Or, should some prose be added to the section? Seems strange to have a section with just a table and a single reference. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:49, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company Storefront Photo

This is a nice photo of a 1930 storefront in the Frankford section of Philadelphia:

Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company Storefront Photo

E709177 (talk) 22:46, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:43, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge with A&P Futurestore

The "future store" itself isn't notable and this article about it lacks necessary sourcing. A few sentences of well-sourced info could reside on the article about A&P. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:28, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

  checkY Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 12:59, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Levinson page number

To editor Nmillerson1982: You added a citation from Levinson but not the page number. Please add the page number so we can find where this content is coming from. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

---Thanks - updated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmillerson1982 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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)


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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:A%26P/Archive_1&oldid=1231317653"