Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chuck E. Cheese's/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 10:48, 16 May 2009 [1].

Chuck E. Cheese's edit

Nominator(s):  Dylanlip  (talk) 16:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

Hello. I'm nominating this article today because I believe that it is ready to become a Featured Article. Over the past several months I have been working on this article nonstop, in order to achieve this goal. I've been able to secure GA Status, along with a full peer review, in which I have addressed all concerns brought up. The stability of the article is good, thanks to beinbg temporarily semi-protected a few weeks ago. I assure you that this article should be great. However, if there is anything that needs to be addressed, I will address them immediately.

Thanks,  Dylanlip  (talk) 16:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by karanacs. I was a big fan of Chuck E Cheese when I was a kid and surprised (and grateful) as an adult to find out that the pizza isn't awful. That's why it saddens me to say that I don't think this article is ready for FA status yet. The article is largely sourced to primary sources, and I think this failure to do more in-depth research leads to a lack of comprehensiveness and an overall dry tone in the article. The prose is also not great. It needs to be polished to sound more encyclopedic. A few other concerns below, as well as pointers on research that could be conducted:

  • The lead does not adequately describe all of the article. The history section, for example, is not represented.
  • There is a little overlinking (no need to link same term twice in one section)
  • Entertainment focuses only on shows, and not on the games, etc that are also a part of the experience.
  • The health concerns section seems a bit of undue weight. I can see how this could be a part of the history section, or wrapped up in another section.
  • There is no information on audience, sales, etc.
  • A great deal of the information is taken from primary sources - the company's website, press releases, etc. This is not optimal. A quick Google Books search found the following that might be useful
    • Kent, Steve L. The ultimate history of video games: from Pong to Pokemon and beyong: the story behind the craze that touched our lives and changed the world [2]
    • Smith, Andrew F. Encyclopedia of junk food and fast food [3]
    • Ritzer, George Enchanting a disenchanted world: revolutionizing the means of consumption [4]
    • Sellers, John Arcade fever: the fan's guide to the golden age of video games [5]
    • Lieberman, Al and Patricia Esgate The Entertainment Marketing Revolution [6]
There seem to be lots more books, touching at least briefly on aspects of marketing, of the company history, or the animatronics. There are lots of newspaper articles indexed on Google as well, and I suspect more can be found.

Karanacs (talk) 19:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that reading a Google books snippet is usually not good enough for good research. I linked to the Google books website here for convenience, but for proper research you need to read more than a few paragraphs of the books to ensure that nothing is being taken out of context. I don't believe the changes that have been made are sufficient - there are still unreliable and self-published sources used heavily in the article, the article still does not appear comprehensive (it is very sketchy), and the prose is not great. At most, I think I'd rate this a C-class. Karanacs (talk) 13:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would imagine this being greatly expanded.

  • "Currency" could very well be just a small component of an "Arcade" section
  • "Health concerns" should be a part of a discussion of the menu
  • "Parodies" is a trivial list and could be better used as a sentence discussing similar establishments.

I'm not sure it's even a strong GA. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 19:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant Oppose I just peer reviewed this and most of the problems I raised there were not really addressed. The lead is too short, the history has a 10 year gap, the voice cast is unreferenced, and it and the parodies seem close to trivia (with the parodies being close to WP:OR). Most importantly, although the infobox gives us some business details, this is a business which has operated over 30 years and there is very little on that aspect of the firm. Not ready for FA by a long shot, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. The striked out concerns have been addressed. Some of the striked out book sources only provided basic info on Chuck E. Cheese's. However, some of the striked books were actually helpful, so they've been used. The only two things that are still a problem are the sales/business info and the history gap. The problem is that the changes in profits/losses quarter by quarter/year by year are only 1-2% in total. So, should I state the net profits or assets of the company for the quarter/year? The history gap is another thing, because of the simple fact that nothing notable really happened during that timespan. No major changes in animatronics, no financial restructuring, no concept redesigns, etc. So I'm not really sure what to do with that time period. And last, can you be more specific about the prose? I can fix the prose if I'm shown the trouble areas, instead of being told generalities. I'll continue work when I get another response.  Dylanlip  (talk) 23:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dylan, it is inappropriate for you to strike other people's comments. Reviewers must make their own judgement call on whether the issue they raised has been fixed (in many cases, reviewers and nominators may have a different idea of what "fixed" is). I am going to unstrike my comments, and I request that you unstrike any other strikeouts you had made for reviewers. Karanacs (talk) 13:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is your first time at FAC, so you don't know this, but please do not strike my or other editors' objections. They are only struck by the person who made them in the first place, when and if you address the issue. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More objections from Ruhrfisch: To be honest, when I saw two strong objects I just listed a few issues I objected to, but did not review it closely. While some articles are improved to pass during FAC, this seems like it has too many problems to resolve in FAC. ANyway, here goes some more major problems.

  • The 10 year gap in history - we know they have restaurants in South American and in Africa - when did they start expanding outside the US? The CEO is listed - when did he become CEO? I have never been to a CEC, but I see their ads all the time on TV - when did they start nationwide TV ads? Here is a New York Times article on their initial advertising in Spanish (by CEC). Lately their ads advertise some sort of stamp on the hands of kids and parents so the parents can negelct their kids er, relax. Is the founder still active in the business? Have they been sued or had major problems? They are in the NYSE category, when did they get listed there?
  • As for the lack of business information - have they had any quarters or years where they lost money? Could you give their profit and stock price every 5 years? Have they had stock splits?
  • I have serious concerns about the reliablilty of some of the sources used. Usually User:Ealdgyth does this, but what makes birthday-party-locations.com or momlogic.com or showbizpizza.com reliable sources? There are lots of New York Times articles that a search on "Chuck E. Cheese" finds. I assume there are other major news sources with articles on CEC, and books.
  • The hardest criterion for most articles to meet is professional prose - this is not there, but the other problems all need to be fixed first. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (by AnOddName)

  • While I'm not sure it's a criteria 2b problem, I don't like seeing all those tiny subsections. Consider merging the one- or two-sentence sections into others, if you can't expand them (as I'm sure you've been trying to).
  • Possible 1b issue: I remember many commercials on Saturday morning cartoons in the '90s that billed it "Where a Kid Can Be a Kid"—I fondly remember their jingle—showing kids playing, eating their pizza, having fun with the cartoon mouse...any material out there about their advertising? (I've never been to a Chuck E. Cheese's—shocking, I know—but I've seen their tv ads quite often.)

--an odd name 21:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Chuck_E._Cheese%27s/archive1&oldid=1078787477"