Wikipedia:Featured article review/Coca-Cola/archive1
The whole article is a big mess, in my opinion. The article has too many red links, uses improper citations and is formatted irregularly. And to top it all, a neutrality dispute tag has been on the article for many days now. Certainly not what one would expect from a featured wikipedia article. It hardly meets criteria 1, 2 and 5. Also, despite posting a message on the talk page two days back, no body seemed interested in improving the article. thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu_Joseph |TALK 08:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. The neutrality of the article is questionable and the article looks biased in favour of the drink. The {{POV-check}} has been lying on the page since 5th May and nothing seems to have been done about it. The citation is also inconsistant and very poorly done with external links inside text. If the article doesn't improve I will reccomend its exclusion from Featured Articles. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 09:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- As explained below, something was done - bear in mind that no rationale beyond "This article sounds like it was written by the Coke company" was given for adding the tag. Actual explanations of how the article is biased ought to be given, or else how can they be fixed? Anyway, I'm just not one inclined to remove the tag without affirmation from at least one other guy that my stance isn't irrational. Johnleemk | Talk 12:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Only three days notice was given; as I am by nature busy, even though I'm interested in the article, I didn't notice it till now. Three days is not a reasonable expectation for editors to take notice. The POV check tag was added by someone who has been pushing his anti-Coke bias since last year, went dormant, and only recently returned. Since I do not consider myself a disinterested a participant, I did not want to risk controversy by removing the POV check tag, even though I rebutted his ill-thought out claims on the talk (which you would have noticed had you scrolled up a bit after placing the notice of an impending FARC). Johnleemk | Talk 11:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- Remove. I agree with Johnleemk that there is nothing wrong with the POV, and the POV warning should be removed after a while, once other editors have had a chance to see it and comment on the POV. However, the organization is somewhat of a mess and it could be shorter. I agree with thunderboltz that this article doesn't meet critera 1, 2, and 5. We could improve the article, but I doubt this will happen quickly. I know I'm too busy to do any significant work on this article for the next couple of months. Philbert2.71828 15:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'm in the middle of a rewrite; I'm busy as well, but I think we can finish this off within a week or two. It's not as hard as it seems. Johnleemk | Talk 16:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- I just did some minor reorganisation, and it already looks a lot better and unified. There's a history section, another section on production, one more for urban myths, and another for criticisms. Now all we need to do is flesh them out and add references. Johnleemk | Talk 05:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'm in the middle of a rewrite; I'm busy as well, but I think we can finish this off within a week or two. It's not as hard as it seems. Johnleemk | Talk 16:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment on Fair-use rationale. This article uses Image:Lg new coke logo.jpg as one of its lead image. The image licencing states that its "fair use" image, however does not satisfy the requirement in my opinion. The "Fair-use" rationale can only be used for "low-resolution" images and I feel that it is very high resolution. Please consider either removing it or re-uploading a lower resolution image. (I hope I am not opening a Pandora's Box). -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 16:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- Will do. There is a tag for requesting the image be resized, I think. I'm not sure where it is, but I think the fair use wikiproject should list it. Johnleemk | Talk 05:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
