Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Target Corporation/archive1

Target Corporation

Self Nomination. This article has gone through significant improvements over the past year, including adding references and balancing the article's POV by adding a criticism sections that is backed up by references. I feel this article would be a good choice for featured article status as it would show Wikipedia's diversity of articles (it seems most featured articles are about things or events). Wikipedianinthehouse 21:47, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Issues I spotted are:
  1. The history section is composed largely of one or two sentence paragraphs. These short paragraphs should be combined to form larger paragraphs.
  2. The article mentions the existence of several divisions other than the retail division (Target Financial Services, Target Commercial Interiors, Target Brands, ...) but only gives a one line description of what each does. The descriptions of each need to be expanded. Some information on the distribution network and back office operations that support the retail stores would also be useful.
  3. There are multiple examples of peacock and weasel terms in the article. Some examples in the Philanthropy section are: Target Corporation is ranked as one of the most philanthropic companies in the country (who did the ranking and when was it done?) and Many religious organizations objected to this decision (Please name two or three of the many religious organizations). The claim in the lead that Target is the second-most successful discount retailer in the United States should also clarify what is meant by "successful". Does success translate into total revenue, total profit, or something else?
  4. The Diversity, Major sponsorships, and Target International sections all need to be expanded from one to three short sentences to at least two good sized paragraphs in length.
  5. The lead is currently on the small size, and after the above issues are addressed will certainly need to be expanded.
  6. As per WP:CITE, the Books section should be renamed either References or Further reading depending on whether the cited book was actually used as a source for verifying the facts presented by the article. Complete citations for the sources references via the footnotes sections should also be provided.

Overall I found there was a lot of good material in the article, but it has a ways to go before reaching FA status. --Allen3 ^talk 23:16, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Having taken a closer look at the references used for this article, I noticed that one of the references, [1], is from a blog on a website maintained by a group with a well-known political agenda. This does not appear to meet the standards at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Dubious sources, so another source should be found for information referenced by this source. --Allen3 ^talk 12:14, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

There is some information on distribution centers in their corporate fact card. I've already cited from it in the article. Target's use of information technology systems can be included, since this article seems to include none of it. 68.226.61.4 08:54, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I've added a couple paragraphs on distribution centers, in addition to some of the information technology that supports the retail stores. 68.226.61.4 22:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I've expanded the part on subsidaries some, however there is still plenty of information that could be added that I left out from the sources that I used. Also, I don't know why it has to be in the History section. 68.226.61.4 22:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I've expanded the History section by adding content and combining paragraphs, and I've moved the book in question to the Notes and references section since it was used in the article. 68.226.61.4 07:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object - Before this article can even be considered for featured article status its one-sentence sections must be fixed. Cedars 09:15, 25 November 2005 (UTC)