Jump to content

Talk:Edible Arrangements

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

Parody in The Onion

[edit]

I had to remove this link from the article, because parodies don't belong in the encyclopedia. However, it might be helpful to be aware of it in relation to future editing of this article: Continued Existence Of Edible Arrangements Disproves Central Tenets Of Capitalism --Orlady (talk) 13:21, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Edible Arrangements/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Aircorn (talk · contribs) 10:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    Lead is too short. Needs a few more sentences to better summarise the article. Who is " VPF International Ltd" and "D.T. Hong Kong Ltd"; this section needs a bit of context. Spell out US. Cronologoy in history could be better (in 2011 should come after 2009). Bit US centric (i,e in the US and internationally should just be internationally). In what way was the Mumbai store serving as a model for the others. Repetition As of 2011, the company has over 1,110 franchisees worldwide. is mentioned in different sections. Don't use ® and TM.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Citation needed tags present, plus It was ranked number 42 on the 2012 Entrepreneur Franchise 500. It also ranked first in category in the Franchise 500 in the years 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 also needs a citation. Sponsership and awards is completely unreferenced.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    It seems very short, but sometimes there is not information available. I did a quick google news search and got quite a few hits, but none of the links I checked expanded too much on what was already here or were just store announcement openings. I would like to know more on what their product is. You mention it briefly in the lead, but it should have it's own section (everything in the lead should be mentioned in the body anyway). The external link could possibly add more info.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    Am going to pass this. Some of the rankings and history seem a bit promotional and I thought the lawsuit was a bit undue. Ideally I would rather see it worked into another section unless it was a major issue. However overall I didn't get the impression it was leaning too far one way or the other.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    No images and no suitable ones found at commons
  7. Overall: Sorry I am going to fail this at this point. I think it needs quite a bit of work before it is at Good article standard. I would encourage you to address the issues raised above and renominate at a later date.
    Pass/Fail:

Terrorism-support controversy

[edit]

The section on the "Terrorism-support controversy" has several issues. These were pointed out by ALM1776 (talk · contribs). However, their version of the section is even more problematic.

First, the section has as its primary source a blog. This fails WP:RS, and should instead be sourced to one of the news articles that covers the issue such as [1] or [2]. Next, it needs added in the source from the anti-defamation league; which is mentioned in the current version, but not cited to [3].

In sum, I think the entire section can be trimmed substantially per WP:WEIGHT, to simply say claims exist which have been refuted by the ADL and the company itself, as well as using better sourcing mentioned above. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Edible Arrangements. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 07:26, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

[edit]

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Carnegie Mellon University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Spring term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:36, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Edible_Arrangements&oldid=1196418684"