Talk:Criticism of Walmart/GA1

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Unfortunately, this article has failed to keep up with GA standards, and is currently near the top of the Cleanup listing by number of tags, so I am beginning a good article reassessment. Initial problems I noticed in a quick run-through:

• 33!!!! dead link tags, leaving significant amounts of information unverified.
• Five citation needed tags.
• Numerous other (untagged) areas that need referencing. Statements by people/companies ("according to Walmart"), statistics, potentially controversial statements, etc. need references.
• Current references need to be checked for reliability and completeness. For example:
  • What makes Ref #75 (The Employer's Lawyer) a reliable source?
  • What makes Ref #119 (cockeyed.com) a reliable source?
  • Several refs include only urls and titles (or just bare urls, a major no-no) - no publisher or other info.
• Poorly-run and understaffed stores section is written in timeline fashion and appears to be leaning towards major recentism. Six of the seven paragraphs discuss 2013, and the remaining one is talking about 2012 - was there no problem with this in the previous 50 years?
• Labor union opposition, "though Coughlin himself apparently restated those claims" - why "apparently"? Did he or didn't he?
• Prose needs an overall going-over. For example, what is "the men and women not being created equal in the workforce is what Walmart is doing and what they should essentially not be doing." trying to say?
• Numerous one and two sentence paragraphs should be expanded or combined with others. Occasionally, they're fine, but in the quantities currently in the article they make for a choppy read and feel like people have just added on sentences as things have happened, rather than attempting to make a coherent narrative.
• I would think that more images could be found to illustrate an 8,600 word article...but this is a more minor issue.

These are from a quick read-through; if and when they are addressed I will do a closer review for prose, etc. Let me know if there are any questions, Dana boomer (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

This article should definitely be de-listed, I've just done some work adding some new URLs to dead links, but there are still 28 dead links, and this can't be fixed easily. What's worse is that some of the information in this article is obviously outdated. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 07:58, 26 September 2015 (UTC)