Talk:History of Burger King
![]() | History of Burger King has been listed as one of the Agriculture, food and drink good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the History of Burger King article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Inaccurate statement about corporate tax being lower in US than Canada
Hi, Please see the following link, it doesn't seem to be true anymore: [1]
Shahin911 (talk) 18:17, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
References
Scratch pad
- LA Times articles on Barry J Gibbons
- LA Times articles on Burger King
- Burger King's Big Comeback Bid
- "Articles about Burger King".
- "Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly,". 11 (3, ). 1970: 35–38.
{{cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires|journal=
(help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) - Zuckerman, David (23 September 1985). "Burger King hits the road; fleet of mobile units bringing burgers to customers". Nation's Restaurant News.
- Edwards, Joe (25 January 1988). "Pillsbury trims but doesn't amputate: opts for cutbacks at 3 chains". Nation's Restaurant News.
- Romeo, Peter (31 October 1988). "Levin gets helm at Burger King: franchisees see signal chain will be sold". Nation's Restaurant News.
- United Press International (8 November 1988). "Pillsbury to spin off Burger King". Lodi News-Sentinel.
- Berg, Eric (20 December 1988). "Grand Met Vows to Fix Burger King". New York Times. p. D1.
- Rothenberg, Randall (24 December 1988). "Grand Met Reviewing Burger King's ads". New York Times. Lakeland Ledger. pp. D1, D4.
- Chrissos, Joan (22 January 1990). "No Quick Fix for Burger King". Boca Raton News. Boca Raton, Florida. p. 13. Retrieved 9 March 2010., name="brn-chrissos"
- Carlino, Bill (14 May 1990). "Cola wars: Burger King switches from Pepsi to Coke". Nation's Restaurant News., name=NRN-Calino
- Ramirez, Anthony (6 May 1990). "Cola wars: Burger King switches from Pepsi to Coke". St. Petersberg News-Times. p. 13D., name=SPNT-Ramirez
- "Grand Met's Net Up 36%". New York Times. 17 May 1990. pp. D22. Retrieved 1 March 2010.
- DeGeorge, Gail; Flynn, Julia (14 November 1993). "Turning Up The Gas At Burger King". Bloomberg Businessweek. Retrieved 10 November 2014., name="BB-DeGeorge"
- Reiter, Ester (March 1996). Making fast food: from the frying pan into the fryer (2nd edition ed.). University Press. pp. 63–118. ISBN 0773513876.
{{cite book}}
:|edition=
has extra text (help), name=reiter - Kramer, Louise (23 December 1996). "Burger King: there's life after Disney as chain posts 'whopper' $9B in sales". Nation's Restaurant News. Retrieved 9 March 2010., name="nrn-kramer"
- Michman, Ronald D. (61 June 1998). The food industry wars: marketing triumphs and blunders. Praeger. ISBN 1567201113. Retrieved 6 March 2010.
{{cite book}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help); Unknown parameter|coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (help), name="michman-mazze" - Milford, Prewitt (15 June 1992). "BK charting new expansion with 'Expressway' concepts". Nation's Restaurant News. BNet.com., name="nrn-prewitt_distron"
- Brockhoff, Anne (23 June 2000). "Diageo to Sell up to 20% of Burger King". Los Angeles Times. Bloomberg News., name="lat-brockhoff"
- Cope, Nigel (23 June 2000). "Diageo signals break-up with £2bn Burger King flotation". The Independent., name="independent-cope"
- Day, Sherri (26 July 2002). U.S. "Investors Agree to Buy Burger King From Diageo for $2.26 Billion". New York Times. pp. C5.
{{cite web}}
: Check|url=
value (help), name="nyt-day_sale" - Blair, Roger D. (11 April 2005). The economics of franchising. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521772524.
{{cite book}}
: Unknown parameter|coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (help). name="blair-lafontaine" - "Burger King plans to file for initial public offering". USA Today. Associated Press. 1 February 2006.
- Smith, Andrew (1 May 2007). The Oxford companion to American food and drink. Oxford University Press. pp. 74–75. ISBN 0195307968., name="smith"
- Hemlock, Doreen (26 June 2007). "Burger King builds a worldwide empire". South Florida Sun-Sentinel. Northwest India Times.
- Sanders, Scott Russell; Frank P., Thomas, Jr. (6 July 2009). Burger Chef. Arcadia Publishing. pp. 8–9. ISBN 0738560987.
{{cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link), name="thomas-sanders" - Gustin, Joseph F. (2004). Disaster & recovery planning: a guide for facility managers (3rd ed.). Fairmont Press. p. 67. ISBN 0881734810.
{{cite book}}
: Unknown parameter|month=
ignored (help) - "Burger King Corporation to Launch BK Back Porch Griller Sandwiches". PRNewswire (Press release). Burger King Corporation. 15 January 2001. Retrieved 12 October 2007.
- David, Burrows (9 September 2010). "Turning around a Burger King past its prime". Marketing week. Retrieved 16 January 2011.
- Jargon, Julie; Chon, Gina (3 September 2010). "BK's Strategy: Play Catch-Up". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 24 August 2011. name="WSJ-Catch-up"
- Bacon Sundae & Summer BBQ
- 3G and company changes
- Good article on Smith
Use of Answers.com
Per the previous review, the use of Answers.com as a general tertiary source is discouraged (see the history of this discussion in the WP:RS/N archives). However, the use of Answers.com as a convenience link to reliable sources may be acceptable in some instances. In this case, it is not needed because a more accurate version of the original company history is available at HighBeam, so one is forced to ask why Answers.com is being cited here. If it's being cited to self-reference Wikipedia, then it cannot be used. If it is being cited only to cite Gale, then the following reference may be acceptable in some instances:
"Burger King Corporation." International Directory of Company Histories, 56. St. James Press, 2004.
Do not cite "Funding Universe", "Answers.com", or even Ginger G. Rodriguez, as it has since been edited by Salamie and Stansell. If, on the other hand, this citation is being used to self-reference Wikipedia content included in the Answers.com page, then this GA nomination must be failed. Viriditas (talk) 04:34, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- I fixed the link to Answers.com. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 09:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
March 2014 GA Review
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
![]() | The result was Fail on 1 April 2014 |
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:History of Burger King/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Secret (talk · contribs) 19:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
I'll be reviewing this article sometime this week. Secret account 19:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm failing this article for a wide varity of reasons, especially comprehensiveness as I realized a bunch of the "key dates" is missing in the body of the text.
- Nothing about the Whopper being launched in the early section, which is its most popular product.
- "BK releases its first TV advertisement" - Not in body of text
- "The company begins to expand through franchising." - Not in body of text, and an important concept in regards to the history.
- Heavy use of [1] as a source, which is not a reliable source
- The "key dates" section is heavily used from the source above, I don't know if that's close paraphasing or a copy of the Wikipedia section but still, very problematic - quick fail right there.
- "Industry innovations" - nothing in the body of the text, just merge it.
I won't go on further but considering the questionable answers source/close paraphasing, I'm failing this article. Secret account 20:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
October 2014 GA Review
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
![]() | I'm closing this, the reviewer seems to have disappeared --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 05:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC) |
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:History of Burger King/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: StudiesWorld (talk · contribs) 19:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Criteria
A good article is—
- Well-written:
- (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
- (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
- Verifiable with no original research:
- (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
- (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2] and
- (c) it contains no original research.
- Broad in its coverage:
- (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
- (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
- Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
- Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. [4]
- Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: [5]
- (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
- (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]
Review
- Well-written:
- Verifiable with no original research:
- Broad in its coverage:
- Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
- Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
- Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
Criteria | Notes | Result |
---|---|---|
(a) (prose) | The reviewer has no notes here. | ![]() |
(b) (MoS) | The reviewer has no notes here. | ![]() |
Criteria | Notes | Result |
---|---|---|
(a) (major aspects) | The reviewer has no notes here. | ![]() |
(b) (focused) | The reviewer has no notes here. | ![]() |
Notes | Result |
---|---|
The reviewer has no notes here. | ![]() |
Notes | Result |
---|---|
This article is currently stable. | ![]() |
Result
Result | Notes |
---|---|
![]() |
Please fix 2A and 2B. |
Discussion
Please add any related discussion here.
Additional notes
- ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
- ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
- ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
- ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
- ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
- ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
Questions
Hello, and thanks for reviewing the article!
1. What parts of the 3G section need further references?
2. Since the article is about a non-controversial subject, the lead really shouldn't need citations. However, If you would, please tell me which parts you find problematic so I can reword them to better reflect the content of the article, or reword the sections they refer in order to better align the two.
3. I fixed the answers.com link.
--Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 17:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- I misread some things you fixed it.
- Comment: Jerem43, StudiesWorld, after two weeks without any activity here, it looks like the review has been abandoned. Due to lack of activity from either of you, I might end up closing this review as unsuccessful. I'll check back in a few days and if there's been no progress, I will likely fail it. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:52, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- I'm closing this as unsuccessful due to lack of activity from both the reviewer AND nominator. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:54, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Excuse me? I have been bugging this guy for two+ weeks, trying to get him to respond. Instead of closing, why don't you take this over. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 04:43, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- Since he's already left comments, it's probably best to start over with a new nomination. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:53, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- start it over. This second nomination sat for at least three months and I would like not to wait another three or four. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 05:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
GA Review
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
![]() | The article was passed by MrWooHoo (talk · contribs) at 8:39, 10 November 2014. |
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:History of Burger King/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: MrWooHoo (talk · contribs) 15:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello! I will be excited to be reviewing this article. I will use a format with a main review then a source and/or prose review (s) at the end. (For example: my most recent review)
Comments
- I've taken a look at the 1st review and the 2nd. I will be using them to make sure you followed their tips/comments. (See Talk:Communist_Party_of_China/GA1, except it was a peer review)
- How about trying to using this kind of table for the time line of this article? Would it be appropriate? Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 00:02, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- That is a cool format, but because of the linear nature of the time line plus its simplicity I think that would be overkill. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 09:15, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Notes from previous 2 reviews
1st GA Review
|
---|
1st Review
"BK releases its first TV advertisement" - Not in body of text
"The company begins to expand through franchising." - Not in body of text, and an important concept in regards to the history. Heavy use of [1] as a source, which is not a reliable source
The "key dates" section is heavily used from the source above, I don't know if that's close paraphasing or a copy of the Wikipedia section but still, very problematic - quick fail right there.
"Industry innovations" - nothing in the body of the text, just merge it. ![]() |
2nd GA Review
|
---|
2nd Review
Don't need to list the points the reviewer gave you, as you already fixed them on the review itself.
|
Main Review
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Lead is summarizing the article, no "weasel words," etc. |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | No original research whatsoever, everything is referenced. |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | All aspects are covered, and the article itself is broad. |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Article doesn't look like it veers off topic. |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | The article is neutral. |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | The article/talk page itself doesn't look like it had any major edit wars/arguments. |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | Images look good with valid fair use rationales, and copyright statuses correct. |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Images are relavent, and captions are suitable. |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | Article is now GA! Thank you @Jerem43: for being an awesome nominator :) Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 13:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC) |
Prose Review
Note: If you have changed the sentence that needed to be corrected, press Enter and start off the line with ::
, then use or
Done
If the change was only partially done use
, and
or
Not done if the change could not occur. (If you would explain why, I would be greatly appreciated :P)
To see code, go to edit source and copy the code.
- Lead
- "The two initiated a corporate restructuring of the chain; the first step was to rename the company Burger King."
- How about saying, "...a corporate restructuring of the chain; the first step being to rename the company Burger King."
Done - reasonable change --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 06:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- History Section
- "It proved successful that, as they grew through franchising, they required all of their franchises to carry the device."
- How about saying, "It proved so successful that, as they grew..."
Done - I missed that typo, TYVM! --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 06:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- "By 1959 the pair had stores..."
- Add a comma after 1959.
Done - Another missed typo, thank you. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 06:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- (In 3G Capital subsection) "The proposed sale is expected to help the company repair its fundamental business structures and continue working to close the gap with McDonald's."
- Change is to was in the first sentence.
Done --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 06:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- "Seven of the top executives were released while another 261 employees..."
- Add a comma after while.
Partially done - That comma would go before "while." --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 06:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Timeline section
- 1953: Insta-Burger King is founded in Jacksonville, FL By Kieth Kramer and Matthew Burns.
- Add comma after FL, and make the by lowercase.
Done --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 07:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- The deal between TPG and diageo nearly fails, but eventually goes through at US$1.6 billion (bn).
- Capitalize Diageo.
Done --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 07:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
See comment in Comments section about this section.
Source Review
- According to dablinks, references 33, 34, and 43 are all dead, and reference 50 redirects for someone to "sign up." Can you fix these please? Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 01:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Ref #33 -
Done - I removed the broken link as I cannot find an archive on Highbeam or other source. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 07:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Ref #34 -
Done - I corrected the broken link. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 08:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Ref #43 -
Done - The link is correct, I followed it to the article. Was it another link maybe? I found out, the link in article is differently numbered in the dab links page. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 08:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Ref #55 -
Done - I corrected the broken link. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 09:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- I went through the broken links and fixed all of them. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 09:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Ref #33 -
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on History of Burger King. 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:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080512012713/http://www.boj.com/articles/franchise/burger_king_fixed.htm to http://www.boj.com/articles/franchise/burger_king_fixed.htm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111116160802/http://www.thesunnews.com/2010/09/03/1671710/burger-king-oks-32-billion-buyout.html to http://www.thesunnews.com/2010/09/03/1671710/burger-king-oks-32-billion-buyout.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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) 20:00, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on History of Burger King. 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:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100204190038/http://finance.yahoo.com/career-work/article/108728/burger-king-draws-critics to https://finance.yahoo.com/career-work/article/108728/burger-king-draws-critics
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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) 09:03, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Coffee
if Tim Horton coffee was served at Burger King, I along with many, many more would be there daily. 2601:4C1:C580:D760:E5F2:6298:17F0:80F8 (talk) 21:36, 5 June 2023 (UTC)