Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Krispy Kreme/archive1

Krispy Kreme

Very good article, meets all FA criteria and should be FA!!!! -- Nathannoblet 10:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object - lead to short, no inline citations I could spot, couple of ugly tags in the middle of the article. Maybe a perr review is worth considering? WegianWarrior 10:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Object - You shouldn't start off by sending people running for cover or a dictionary or an encyclopedia with the first sentence: "Krispy Kreme sells a variety of doughnuts, but it is most famous for its traditional glazed doughnut, often served warm." Don't tell me what it does, tell me what it is. So, is Krispy Kreme a chain of coffee shops that sells donuts? A chain of department stores that sells donuts? A famous fur shoppe in downton Manhattan that sells donuts through a drive-up window? Isn't Krispy Kreme a franchise 24-hour donut shop or something similar? KP Botany 15:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)*Comment: The first line is and has been: "Krispy Kreme is a popular chain of doughnut stores. Its parent company is Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Inc. (NYSE: KKD), based in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA." I don't see how this objection is valid. Rmhermen 18:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I stand correct. I missed the lead because of the article's layout, there's a huge contents box, tons of blank space, and a tiny little 1 1/2 lines at the top instead of a lead section--I thought the lead section was the next section, which is actually long enough to be one and labelled "Overview" as if it is one. A reason for a longer lead might be so people can see it. Strong Object per Jay32183, the lead is terrible, utterly terrible. Please, it's a culturally interesting topic, it would be great FA fodder to show how to write about a commercial enterprise without being an advertisement for it, take time to give it a lead section, run it through peer review, then bring something smart and great back here. KP Botany 00:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object:Red links abound. Fix that first. Evan^{(Salad dressing is the milk of the infidel!)} 12:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object The lead is terrible, and there should be no "Overview" section. The lead is supposed to summarize the article, following with an overview should be redundant. Jay32183 19:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong object. It fails 1a through d and all of 2. I suggest the nominator familiarise him/herself with our criteria and with the standard of our current featured articles (see Saffron for a particularly good article). Mikker ^(...) 04:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object I think the "Unencyclopedic Lists" says it all. Othewise, the rest of the article is pretty bad. There are Red Links galore, for one. Some of the sentences are crammed together and choppy. The pictues at the top are too close and quite crammed also. Work on it. A lot more. Throw in some references and sources. Clean up the look. Expand it. Then go for Good Article. That might get you somewhere. Jerichi 22:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object The section about the openining of one store in Melbourne is almost as long as section on the company's history. In 10 years, will anyone care that the store at Fountain Gate opened at 6:30 in the morning? Does anyone even care now? And can we take both mentions of the neon sign out of the introduction? --Richmeister_talk 07:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object The history section is bitterly uneven, with a strong bias towards very recent events, as well as flow-disrupting one-sentence paragraphs, often out of chronological order. It's difficult to know what the 'Problems in New York' section is supposed to be about.--Nydas^(Talk) 18:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]