Jump to content

Talk:Fluor Corporation/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
Article promoted - 13 July 2014.

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

Reviewer: TLSuda (talk · contribs) 19:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! I know you've waited a few months for a review, but I have good news! I'm stuck in a tin can for 5 hours tomorrow late night UTC, so I'm going to use that time wisely to review this article. I expect to have the review posted in the early morning hours UTC the following day. (Approximately less than 36 hours from this post.) I look forward to reading and reviewing this article. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 18:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks User:TLSuda! One thing I will point out about this article is that as a construction company (as oppose to tech, internet or something more modern) it is not a buzzy topic that gets as much media coverage as you would expect for a Fortune 500 company, so some of the sources are a little weak or non-traditional (for example, I found a government report that summarized their most significant government contracts). I think I have used good judgement in these cases, but I'll see what you think in 36 hours! CorporateM (Talk) 19:47, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @CorporateM: sorry about the extreme delay. Internet has been spotty where I've been staying, so I've only been posting responses as I can. Here's my review. Take your time in responding if you need it. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 15:08, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Initial review

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Almost there, just a few small things to consider. See prose review below. TLSuda (talk) 15:08, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Prose review

[edit]

Lead

[edit]
  • "global services" does not need quotes around it.
 Done It's actually the name of the division, so I put it in title-caps, etc., which should do the trick CorporateM (Talk) 15:35, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Early history

[edit]
  • "President" should be lowercase when referring to the position and not using it as a title. IE President Obama vs Obama is president.
 Done CorporateM (Talk) 15:39, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Business declined rapidly during the Great Depression and picked up again during World War II" change "and" to "yet", it flows better
 Done I used "but" does that work? CorporateM (Talk) 15:39, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spell out United States or write it as U.S. in the next sentence.
 Done
  • I just want to verify that the president in 1952's name was Si Fluor and that it isn't typo.
 Done The source says "John Simon "Si" Fluor Jr." which is what I have now placed in the text. CorporateM (Talk) 15:43, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Diversification and restructuring

[edit]
  • Add a comma after "In 1972..."
 Done CorporateM (Talk) 15:43, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same for US as above.
 Done
  • "Fluor's international business rebounded." When? What business? I assume sometime after 1987, but it is unclear.
 Done Changed to "revenues" to make it more clear. CorporateM (Talk) 15:58, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recent history

[edit]
  • Add a comma after "In the 1990s..."
 Done CorporateM (Talk) 15:47, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Organization

[edit]
  • Fix US
 Done CorporateM (Talk) 15:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done CorporateM (Talk) 15:49, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "anticorruption" should be "anti-corruption"
 Done CorporateM (Talk) 15:49, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notable objects

[edit]
  • US again x 3
 Done CorporateM (Talk) 15:51, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Side question

[edit]
  • Not relevant to the GA discussion, but: Any reason you didn't use more of the parameters of the infobox? Like founder= former_name= area_served= divisions= ? TLSuda (talk) 15:08, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Good question. CorporateM (Talk) 15:54, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And with all of your additional work, I'm very happy to promote this article! Good work @CorporateM:! I'm glad that your work is so high quality and that your COI does not prevent you from being neutral as possible. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 23:44, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]