Talk:Chipotle Mexican Grill/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My initial though is that the article is a bit short. In particular, the history section is lacking, and I would have liked to see more non-corporate issues and growth patters etc. there. The lead needs to be a bit longer, and reflect more of the width of the body. Some comments:

The first instance of the name should be [full legal name] trading as [trading name], or something similar. If the legal name and trading name are close enough, that is not necessary, so it is a bit arbitrary in this case.
On Wikipedia, it is common to use IPA for pronunciation. There should be some place to ask for help if you (like me) don't master IPA.
Need to specify the country, not just the city and state. There is nothing that indicates that this is a US enterprise at all. Remember to spell out "United States" as such, but not wikilink. Similarly in the infobox is should be "United States", not U.S.
I don't like the wording "commitment to natural ingredients". While it may be true that the organization uses more natural ingredients than other fast-food chains, try to replace the work "commitment" with something more objective, such as "use".
"Relatively new" is a terrible term. Everything is reletive, and in this case the term is used to mean not-really-that-new-anymore. Try to avoid vague time commons such as this on Wikipedia.
Who owns the company now?
The lead seems a skewed. For instance, there is no mention of number of outlets or geographical coverage, but previous owners are mentioned. The lead could be a bit longer, and should include a little more from all the body.
It seems to me that the images chosen from the Commons category are not the best regarding composition. There is ample space for additional (perhaps two more) images. It would look nice if they were every other.
Don't force image sizes.
The logo should be cropped to remove white space. If you do not know how to do with .svg files, just ask and I can do this using Inkscape.
In the infobox, the words "founder" and "chairman" should be non-capitalized.
Instead of "33 contiguous states, the District of Columbia, and Ontario", say "United States and Canada" or "United States and Ontario".
When writing city, state, there needs to be a comma after the state (unless there is other punctuation such as period there).
IPO needs to be de-acronymized to its full "initial public offering".
In the history section, it should be state where there the shares were traded.
"Best" IPO is subjective. What is best for people who bought in the IPO, is bad for the people issuing the IPO, who made too little money. Essentially the company's financial division made a failure to secure capital. Instead, use a more explanatory term.
"divested its investment" sounds awkward. Perhaps use "divested from...".
The McDonald's-sentence is rather long and should be split in two.
The last two paragraphs of the "history" section are too short and should be merged.
CEO should be de-acronymized.
Is the map, that was created a year ago, up do date what concerns states?
The history section has a lot about corporate history, but I would have liked to see more inbetween store no. 1 and no. 900.
Is it the European restaurants that are vertically integrated (non-franchised), or also all in the US/Canada?
The sentence "A new kids menu features quesadillas." is rather short.
Does the store not except phone orders?
Open-range and antibiotic should be wikilinked.
The term '"natural" meat producer' needs a bit more elaborating or an appropriate link. Do they mean organic?
Again, rBGH should be written out in full.
"Advertising/publicity" should use the word "and" instead of a slash. Personally, I would have thought the term "marketing" was more suitable, since it is an all-encompassing term.
I am a bit uncertain if the mention of two television shows are noteworthy. Is there evidence (i.e. sources) of product placement? In such case, it would be worthy of inclusion, but there mere mention of the brand in a television show is not necessarily worthy of mention.
The last three paragraphs of "advertising/publicity" should be merged.
"Chili" links to a disambiguation page.
Ref 55 and 57 have dead links.
Two sourced links of food poisoning seem to have been removed.
No need for external links, all the time this link is in the infobox. Remember: the ideal article has no "external links" or "see also" section.

I am placing the article on hold. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have editted the article with regards to the suggestions above. Thus far, the following has been done:

The name of the company is spelled out in full to start the article.
The IPA pronounciation has been added (well, I copied the one from the chipotle pepper article. I personally find the IPA to be useless for 99% of readers, as most people don't know it (I actually had to learn the IPA for a linguistics class in college, and remembered none of it). Of course, that discussion is for another place, and it is part of WP's manual of style.
United States has been added to the Denver spot, and U.S. is full spelled out.
I changed "commitment to natural ingredients" throughout. The term was taken from a source, but I can see the NPOV problems with the term. I hope the new wording is effective.
Removed "relatively new". Yep, bad, subjective phrase.
Founder/chairman have been de-capitalized.
The infobox now says, "United States and Canada," and added that info to the article instead.
Fixed city/state puncuation issues.
IPO, rGBH, and CEO spelled out in full.
Added that shares are traded on New York Stock Exchange.
Changed "divested investment" to "divested from". Much better wording.
The McDonald's sentence in the history section has been split.
Last two sentences of history section merged.
Changed location of franchising sentence to remove ambiguity regarding whether all or some locations are franchised.
Wiki-linked antibiotic, but "open-range" has no article on WP.
Moved and expanded sentence about kid's menu.
The last three sentences of "Advertising and publicity" section merged.
Fixed chili pepper wikilink.
I am pretty sure I fixed the dead links.
Added in food poisoning refs, although I can currently only find one case of food poisoning that received significant coverage.
Removed External links.

I have worked on a other items, although I'm not sure if it is exactly to the suggestions:

I reworked the lead to add more info from the body.
I tried beefing up the article with more info from the refs, especially in the history section.

Issues I am sure how to resolve:

I cannot find any refs either for or against phone orders.
The "naturally-raised" phrase is taken from the refs, and is stated in one of them that it isn't a legal term. However, that is why there is a explanation in parantheses saying, "defined by the company as..." Organic is a broad term, also. I did wiki-link the first mention of "natural" in the lead to organic food.
For the "Advertising and publicity" section, marketing would work, but that is of course if the TV show references were removed. This is a debate depending on preference, although WP is trending toward removal of "pop culture" and "trivia". I personally think these belong in the article in that the popular TV shows did not just mention Chipotle, they featured it prominently. And the fallout from the South Park episode spiked the hits to the page 13-fold. They are backed by proper references, so I would lobby to keep the information in the article.
I am not sure what you mean by who owns the company. If by that you mean who owns the majority of shares, I have not found a ref that specifically states who or what does it. I'd assume it is the founder, but cannot currently back it with refs.
I am also not sure what is meant by "like to see more information about 1 to 900. I have seen a number of refs mention store numbers at different points in the history, so one solution would be to say, "Chipotle have x number of stores in 1998, x number in 2001, x number in 2005..." Also, it seems that the coverage of the company was spotty up until 2005-2006, when the store numbers became significant and the IPO was announced.
I do not know a ton about businesses, but the "best IPO" section is pretty much taken directly from the sources, and I think it refers to the doubling of the stock in the first day of trading. But if you have better suggestions, or that it would be better to be removed, I would love to hear it from someone who understands commerce.
I had a feeling the images issue would come up. However, while I have been able to figure out how to edit on WP, the formatting of images, Wikipedia commons, and inclusion of pictures completely eludes me. I would need significant help to improve that part of the article.

I would appreciate the input regarding the recent changes and further suggestions to the article. Angryapathy (talk) 14:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick update: I was able to modify the map to show the most recent distribution, and have added it to the article. Two states were missing. Angryapathy (talk) 17:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I added, moved, and changed some pictures on the page. Angryapathy (talk) 14:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for the late reply.

You comments to my feedback is all reasonable, and I may have misunderstood the context of the TV-series. As a marketing student, I can assure you that both 'advertisement' and 'promotion' are always subsections of 'marketing', so no worries about using that term (although marking professionals, particularly in North America, tend to use 'promotion' in a rather limited specter. It is not a big issue, either way. I don't watch much South Park, but I can understand that a major feature of the product there would be mentionable.
As for the 1 to 900 issue, I would say that just adding those numbers you can find you be sufficient. The idea is to just give an idea to the reader. Once all available reliable sources have been exploited, no more content can be added to an article, and that will normally dictate the length of such a article on Wikipedia.
A side comment on the "best IPO" issue: on Wikipedia we have to be NPOV and cite sources. However, those sources do not necessarily have to be NPOV, as long as they are factually accurate and reliable. Therefore, a source may be adequate to reference the fact, but the wording chosen by the source may be inappropriate. The IPO issue is remarkable, although not a good or bad thing. Media outlets, on the other hand, always tend to see rapid increases of share prices as a 'good' thing (which is of course only good for those who recently bought).
You can use http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py to check for dead links.
The images look good, and putting them in alternating right–left is difficult, so I must say it went rather good. The only thing is that images should not have a 'forced' size. The reason is that different users need different sizes (as set in the preferences) based on accessibility, screen size, bad eye sight, low band width etc. I added {{clear}} before the references, to avoid the bottom image "messing" with the references (on my screen with 300px image width it looks not that great).

Congratulations! I am passing the article—you've done a great job, and I hope to see more articles at GAN in the future :) Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! Well done, Angryapathy. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]