Talk:Wiener King

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by reviewer, closed by Narutolovehinata5 talk 11:31, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that in 1975, the Wiener King company launched a promotional hot air balloon 50 feet (15 m) above President Gerald Ford’s visit to Freedom Park?

• Source: https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/622734935/

• Reviewed:

Created by MallardTV (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

MallardTV (talk) 18:15, 22 August 2024 (UTC).

• General eligibility:
• New enough: - This doesn't seem to meet the WP:DYKNEW criteria: it was moved to mainspace more than seven days ago (28 April 2024), hasn't been expanded fivefold in the last seven days, and it hasn't been promoted to good article status. Since it was just nominated for good article status, I'd suggest withdrawing this DYK nomination and waiting for the good article process. If it becomes a good article, you can nominate it for DYK within seven days.
• Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
• Other problems: - Sourcing meets the minimum for DYK, but it's skimpy, especially in the name dispute section. The history section relies somewhat heavily on the North Carolina Rabbit Hole article, but I don't think it rises to the level of a plagiarism issue.

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting: - Hook is kind of interesting, but it's missing some context - suggest linking Gerald Ford and Freedom Park. Freedom Park also needs to be linked in the article - which Freedom Park?

QPQ: None required.

Overall: Good effort, but I suggest completing the good article process before coming back to DYK. I put together some article content suggestions before realizing the newness issue, so I put them on the article talk page. Dreamyshade (talk) 21:44, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Suggestions

I started writing some comments as part of the DYK review process, but then I realized that this is also submitted for good article review. I don't want to do a whole good article review right now, but I'll contribute a few suggestions:

• In the lead, the citations for "In 1980, Wiener King was subject to a well known legal dispute." don't support that it was a "well known" legal dispute. Suggest revising to something like: "In 1980, Wiener King was sued by another chain with a similar name, Weiner King."
• Some of the citations are missing details or could use a little tidying up. I fixed a few, but you could do more.
• The story goes straight from "By 1979, Wiener King's headquarters went up for sale" to "In 1982 the presiding bankruptcy judge..." - seems to be missing a step where it filed for bankruptcy?
• It's kind of confusing that the trademark dispute isn't mentioned in the history section. How did the dispute impact the company? Did it contribute to the decline? I suggest summarizing the dispute in the right chronological spot in the history section and linking to the more detailed section from there.
• The name dispute section is confusing me because it doesn't seem to be in chronological order - the "background" starts with 1980, but it looks like the legal actions started in 1975? Suggest revising so that a reader can more easily understand the flow of cause-and-effect.

Dreamyshade (talk) 21:28, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

At the beginning of the paragraph it says he filed in 1978. MallardTV (talk) 00:07, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh I see, I missed that somehow! Dreamyshade (talk) 00:11, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I took your advice, thanks muchly. MallardTV (talk) 00:18, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Great! I'd encourage working more on your references - if you're aiming for Good Article status, ideally each sentence should be cited, the citation should clearly support the claim, and the citation itself should have complete details about the source (author, date, publisher, etc). I added in a few inline tags where I couldn't find clear support for the statement in the referenced document. Dreamyshade (talk) 15:16, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I think I got the inline tags resolved. MallardTV (talk) 16:11, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Wiener King/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: MallardTV (talk · contribs) 03:38, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: TheBritinator (talk · contribs) 00:36, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I will review this. Please allow me time to review the sections, and I will leave comments as I go. Thanks. TheBritinator (talk) 00:36, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

MallardTV, see comments below. The article has some issues that needs addressing. TheBritinator (talk) 16:05, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

@MallardTV Follow up ping. TheBritinator (talk) 22:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Out of state— will be back next week. Can't use computer while I'm away sadly. MallardTV (talk) 22:49, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

@MallardTV I'm going to mark this as a fail for now. It has been almost 3 weeks with no word. Once you have the time, please consider addressing the feedback from me and other editors and renominating it. I believe that it has the potential to reach the GA criteria, but needs some work first. Good luck. TheBritinator (talk) 14:06, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Lead/infobox

• Is Weiner Works it's successor or a split-off? As it being the successor would imply the original ceased to exist, despite there being one remaining location under the original name, and seemingly owned by different people. Would be great if this could be cleared up.
• Source 2 (Broken Chains) is a self-published source and cannot be considered reliable. See Wikipedia:SPS.
• "It was well known for its advertising and publicity" - Something like "The chain gained publicity due to it's controversial advertising." would be better as the sources don't appear to say that it was specifically well known for it.
• I am unable to this particular newspaper archive. I'll wait until you provide me with the newspaper sources so I can verify them here. I'll update it once I do.

Founding

• This whole section seems to be structured and worded very similarly to the The Ballad of the Wiener King source. I would recommend rewriting this to be more original.
• Minor thing; you don't really need to cite the newspaper source twice here. If both are citing the same thing, you can just put it at the end.

Growth

• Source 6 appears to be called 'The Carolina Financial Times', not 'The Dispatch'. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong however.
• The part on John E. Hodge Jr should be expanded to show that his lawyer and the Consumer Protection Office were involved, and that he and Howard reached a settlement regarding the issue. As it is written now it seems rather unnotable.
• "The restaurant quickly became a popular franchise across the United States" - Where exactly in the source does it say anything about this? I am unable to find anything that directly says it was popular, just that it expanded rapdily.
• This section makes no note of the advertisement campaigns that the company conducted, even though I can see a few of the sources mention them. If they are as important as the lead suggests, then why is it not expanded upon? I see that this is referenced in the operations section, retracting this for now.

Decline and bankruptcy

• Again, a significant amount of this section is structured and worded very similarly to the The Ballad of the Wiener King source. This needs to be entirely rewritten.
• "In 1975, the company was sued by another company using a similar name, but the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board's eventual ruling did not affect Wiener King negatively." - Is this relevant to the company's decline and bankruptcy if it didn't affect it negatively? This takes place before the noted date in the previous section, so why not put it there instead?

Post-acquisition

• "Several Wiener King franchises opted to alter their identities due to discontent with their corporate affiliation, choosing to operate independently. For instance, in 1978, four Wiener Kings located in Greensboro rebranded themselves as "Sally's." These locations maintained the same menu." - I don't see anything in the source that supports this, they seem to be just talking about how they used to go to Sally's while they were younger, but nothing about its connection to Wiener King.
• "Similarly, in 1987 several Wiener Kings changed their name to Wiener Works, subsequently breaking away from the parent company. Some of these locations remain open." - Again, I don't see anything in either source that supports this, other that they are in fact open. Also these are primary sources, I doubt they are reliable.
• "One store in Mansfield, Ohio still operates under the Wiener King name" - Again with the self published source, not reliable. Please find something else.
• "as do several hot dog carts in North Carolina. - Primary source, although that may be able to fly since it is a small claim.
• "It has a 4.9 star rating on Yelp and a 4.5 star rating on Tripadvisor as of August 2024." This is user generated sources. Remove it.
• "Ronald W. Howard died February 21, 2016, at the age of 74." - The source should be expanded to include the name of the website.

Franchising

• A large portion of this section is structured and written very similarly to The Carolina Financial Times article is citing, just changing a few words here and there is not enough. This also needs to be entirely rewritten.

Locations

• "Wiener King had locations in over half of the U.S. states, but mostly had locations in the eastern United States. The highest concentration of restaurants was in the Carolinas. - The source specifically states that Wiener King had sites in 25 states, not over. I cannot see anything that supports that this was predominantly in the eastern US or the Carolinas.
• "At one time the franchise had over 175 locations." - The source states that it had 174 locations, not over 175.
• This section is very short, why cannot it just be moved to the growth section? Seems more relevant there.

Marketing

• "An early marketing strategy of the Wiener King company was making controversial advertisements, which was a very profitable venture." - The source says that it gained the company publicity, but nothing about it being "very profitable".
• "One such advertisement included a then-local Charlotte DJ, Jay Thomas, wearing nothing but a towel and holding a hot dog under his arm. In 1974 at least one TV station refused to air the commercial." - This is again written and structured very similarly to the source it is citing. Please rewrite this.
• "In 1975, the company gained attention for blowing up a big hot air balloon that said "Wiener King" on the side, and flying it 50 feet above President Gerald Ford’s visit to Freedom Park in Charlotte." - This is again worded very similarly to the The Ballad of the Wiener King source, even though it does not cite it in this instance.
• "Their tagline was "King of Hot dogs, USA." The company handed out paper crowns to children, as does the modern restaurant Burger King." - Another self-published source, not reliable.

Menu

• I wouldn't consider Instagram a reliable source here, try to find something else if possible. Rest seems good.

Name dispute

• This section, as a whole, relies far too heavily on primary sources, though I have seen passing mentions of the case in the previous section's sources. This appears to be a direct report from the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, not a summary from a law journal or anything like that. Some primary sources are okay, but this seems like too much (See WP:PRIMARY, it says that articles should not be based entirely on primary sources and that we should "be cautious about basing large passages on them"). If the case is notable, then please use secondary sources to cover it instead. Otherwise I would just remove this section as a whole and merge a reduced version with the founding or growth section.
• "Howard's Wiener King had no prior knowledge of Weiner King's existence upon adopting the mark, but expanded its operations extensively across multiple states after learning of Weiner King's existence." This reads a little weird. Something like; "Howard had no prior knowledge of New Jersey Weiner King's existence upon adopting the mark, but expanded his own Wiener King's operations extensively across multiple states after learning of the former's existence." would read better.
• Though some of the wording is similar in this section to the sources it cites, I don't think it is a problem in this case.

External Links

• I don't think you should link every social media they have, no other fast food wiki page does this. Just stick to the official website, if they have one.

References

• I would recommend archiving sources.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.