Jump to content

Talk:McDonald's

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured article candidateMcDonald's is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 18, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
August 25, 2011Articles for deletionSpeedily kept
May 27, 2025Good article nomineeNot listed
On this day... A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on April 15, 2011.
Current status: Former featured article candidate

More controversy

[edit]

Can you add that McDonald's IS NOT GLUTEN FREE? 206.57.152.111 (talk) 15:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: That isn't really a "controversy", unless you have some sourcing that describes it that way. AntiDionysius (talk) 15:46, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you think that they would be? Hamburger buns are made from WHEAT. Gluten comes from WHEAT. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 21:23, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated employee* numbers

[edit]

Hi! This is my first time here.

I noticed that the employee number of (1.7 million) on this page is outdated. This Britannica article from 2024-12-12 states that "It is also one of the world’s largest private employers, with more than 150,000 company employees and 2,000,000 workers at franchised locations." [1]

Seems like the 1.7 million number in the WorldAtlas [20] and MSN [21] pages are from 2011 or earlier, as this Business Insider article from that time states the same number. [2]

Also wondering if company employees is the correct term for people working at franchise locations? Zeinhob Geckoran (talk) 15:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

[edit]
Unsuccessful. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 03:29, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:McDonald's/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Mikeycdiamond (talk · contribs) 21:17, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Rollinginhisgrave (talk · contribs) 02:56, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a big article, with a huge subject, so getting it to GA status is an enormous task. This being said, I don't think it's there right now. The big issue is detail and breadth. For example, almost all of the history section for the last 50 years is cited to primary sources, focusing on the smoking ban, the Forever Young redesign, and the COVID pandemic. It can be seen in other cases, such as listing the entire current board of directors, cited to a primary source, almost all the #Global activities being cited to primary sources in a hodgepodge manner, the #War controversies section sourced entirely to WP:PRIMARYNEWS, so on down the line. The recalls section is almost a thousand words and cited almost entirely to a listicle.

The prose is clear and concise, which meets the GA requirement, but it really should get a copyedit. For example, "Previously headquartered in Oak Brook, Illinois, it moved to nearby Chicago in June 2018." "In June 2018 the headquarters moved from Oak Brook, Illinois to nearby Chicago."

Some issues with images: File:New-McDonald-HU-lg (43261171540).jpg should be tagged with Template:Trademarked. I'm seeing some mixed information online whether the Golden Arches meet the threshold for creative express, e.g. this IP firm.

I'll leave this with you for now. If you need any help with actioning these, ping me to the talk page and I can assist where possible. One tip I would leave you with for assessing if you are giving appropriate weight to information is to avoid contemporary sources. Best, Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 03:28, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:54, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:37, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The re-adding of removed content

[edit]

@Floating Orb, I saw you re-added the gallery section and removed content from the criticism section. The gallery should be removed as per Wikipedia:GALLERY and the criticism additions (the ones before the subsections) should be removed as per Wikipedia:BLOATED (except for the Fast Food Nation criticism). The criticism before the subsections are meant to serve as highly notable examples, which can either lead into the subsections or summerize the most important events/criticism (depending on the type of reader). Mikeycdiamond (talk) 01:49, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I'll undo the extra stuff. Floating Orb (talk) 02:50, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Floating Orb (talk) 02:54, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, when I cited BLOATED, I was talking about the stuff before the criticism subsections. If you want to re-add the animal cruelty part I would support it. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 10:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, okay. Floating Orb (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

[edit]

Mikeycdiamond, I see based on this edit summary you are going through and improving sourcing. You're doing a great job with avoiding contemporary sourcing, thanks for continuing work on the article.

I had a few more tips (comments? notes.) My general view on assessing if a claim in a source can be trusted can be found at User:Rollinginhisgrave/How I understand reliable sources, but one tool you may find helpful to check if a claim could be true, is seeing if the source is mentioned at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources (RSP) or the Reliable sources/Noticeboard archives.

If you do that, you will see that claims the New York Post makes generally can't be trusted. In this article in particular, the New York Post cites their source as Statista. RSP also comments on Statista, saying Statista aggregates statistical information from a number of sources, many of which are reliable. It is not the source of the statistics it displays, so should not be cited directly. So we should avoid making this claim if this is the only source, as we don't really know if it's true, unless we track down Statista's source. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 02:46, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:McDonald%27s&oldid=1292835935"