Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Target Corporation/archive2
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 01:11, 7 July 2007.
Target Corporation[edit]
Well written, well sourced - very extensive --Trumpetband WIHTW? 19:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Link to first FAC nomination for convenience: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Target Corporation/archive1 on November 2005. Tuxide 03:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Slight oppose - three images need fair-use rationales, and I'm not sure that showing every historical logo really qualifies as "minimal use" since they aren't really central to any discussion within the article. (ESkog)(Talk) 19:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe Image:TargetLogo.png can be removed since I think merely showing it on the front of a unit in Kelly Martin's freely available photograph is good enough. I am wondering how to replace Image:Target logo (1968).png, however since it was only ever used on nine units prior to 1968. If there was a freely usable image of an old Target store using this logo, then this would be resolved. I've been meaning to ask the cofounder's son if he had one that he'd be willing to volunteer to us, for I think such an image would add greater value to the article than a fair use image of a logo. Tuxide 06:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Slight oppose - In addition to the problems cited by Eskog above, there is also the sponsorship section that has several uncited comments. Otherwise, the article is very well written and compelling. I look forward to seeing those two issues taken care of. Trusilver 19:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment i dont see the need for 2 images in the subsidiaries section Brent Ward
- Comment This is Target Corporation's second FAC; previous nom on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Target Corporation/archive1 which was a year and a half ago. The article has improved greatly since then; [1] is the version that failed FAC. In my opinion, most of the issues brought up in the nomination were taken care of, but not all of them such as the size of the lead paragraph. Tuxide 03:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixes needed - Lead should be 2-3 paras and summarise points of article. Also, there is no mention of overseas in body of article (e.g. we have Target in Australia. how/why?). I'm not a fan of See also sections. In most cases they can be mentined and linked to in main text (in which case mention at the bottom is redundnat) or the link is obscure. All these, though, could be in body of text. I'll have another look when these are done. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Target in Australia has its own article (I believe it's Target. now). I don't know why there are there are Targets in Australia, but the two chains have absolutely no relation to each other. I believe Coles Group has acquired the rights to use the name and logo in Australia, but I don't know how or why. Target Corporation doesn't operate stores outside of the United States and that is clearly stated. There is also what is on the talk page. Regards, Tuxide 23:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
.png){kind=link}
- OK fair enough. Given that Wikipedia is worldwide, there needs to be clarification on the main article page - a brief section commneting on the name's use worldwide, otherwise simple omission could be seen as US-centric and fails comprehensiveness criteria. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Somebody has already added this in, I'll see if I can find a citation for it. I believe the Coles Group has been using it since 1968, the same year the brandmark was made, so this could be informative. If I read your posts correctly, you mentioned having an entire "brief section" on international affairs, any idea what to name it? There are also comments on Talk:Target Corporation#Expansion as per FACfailed as per such a section. Tuxide 00:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I scanned through looking for an Australian ref the first time and totally missed it (typing 'overseas' and 'international' into cntrl-F but nevermind. Currently it has one sentence. This has to be expanded - how does copyright work here? Was there a squabble? Has there been any interaction? At least going to the Target Australia page and bringing in a litle info. Call it Target Australia' if this is the only country or Overseas if there are others. it doesn't have to be very long - I'd say 4-5 sentences minimum cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My point is that I don't think such a section should be limited to the relation between just two companies. A corporate relations section could be informative if it included other companies. For example, Target Corporation has exclusive rights to sell brands such as Cherokee clothing and Hilary Duff's "Stuff" brand in the United States, but HBC's Zellers and the Coles Group Target sell the same brands in Canada and Australia respectively. I don't know what all relations Target Corp has with HBC, but from a North American point of view the relation between these two is more interesting. Another thing is that if we limited a section to just Target Corp and the Coles Group, I can't imagine it being any bigger than a paragraph, and I'm not a big fan of one paragraph sections. Tuxide 06:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But that's just it, from a North American point of view. Deals between department store chains and clothing brands change from country to country and sometimes from state to state. I'd find it a fascinating insight into the value of corporate logos and profile to read about the details of leasing a high profile brand name and how it came about.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- North America is not a country, it's a continent but never mind that. Although I think expansion on this would be insightful—after all, the bullseye brandmark is one of the most recognizable logos in the world—I'm still not convinced that an entire section should be centered on Australia. This really sounds like part of an even bigger section like I said above, or it could possibly be thrown into Target Corporation#Subsidiaries under a new subsection since it deals with the Target Brands division. I'd have to find another featured corporate article to go off of and see how it's done there. Tuxide 18:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, thinking laterally is good - essentially my Australian point is part of a bigger subject of brand and profile (and how much its worth etc.)..cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BIZE once referred me to Microsoft and Apple Inc. (when it was FA) as templates to use for articles within WP:RETAIL's scope. I like the TOC structure of the two of them; they have a Corporate affairs main section with something like Diversity, Logos and slogans, etc. as subsections. Currently, Target Corporation#History is way too big, and I know because I wrote most of it. Its contents can be separated into a Logos and slogans subsection, a Corporate governance subsection, etc. so that the History section only contains information on the parent company. The history about the chain expansion can be moved into Target Corporation#Target Stores (which can possibly be split from the main article). Then, the subsections can be expanded on; there is much about slogans that isn't said in the current article. Information on the brandmark agreement can go in here; I believe Dayton and Myer started using the current brandmark right on the same time (1968), and I don't know who came up with it first. Target Corporation uses Helvetica, but I don't know what the Australian wordmark uses or why they switched to that name. Tuxide 23:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, thinking laterally is good - essentially my Australian point is part of a bigger subject of brand and profile (and how much its worth etc.)..cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- North America is not a country, it's a continent but never mind that. Although I think expansion on this would be insightful—after all, the bullseye brandmark is one of the most recognizable logos in the world—I'm still not convinced that an entire section should be centered on Australia. This really sounds like part of an even bigger section like I said above, or it could possibly be thrown into Target Corporation#Subsidiaries under a new subsection since it deals with the Target Brands division. I'd have to find another featured corporate article to go off of and see how it's done there. Tuxide 18:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But that's just it, from a North American point of view. Deals between department store chains and clothing brands change from country to country and sometimes from state to state. I'd find it a fascinating insight into the value of corporate logos and profile to read about the details of leasing a high profile brand name and how it came about.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My point is that I don't think such a section should be limited to the relation between just two companies. A corporate relations section could be informative if it included other companies. For example, Target Corporation has exclusive rights to sell brands such as Cherokee clothing and Hilary Duff's "Stuff" brand in the United States, but HBC's Zellers and the Coles Group Target sell the same brands in Canada and Australia respectively. I don't know what all relations Target Corp has with HBC, but from a North American point of view the relation between these two is more interesting. Another thing is that if we limited a section to just Target Corp and the Coles Group, I can't imagine it being any bigger than a paragraph, and I'm not a big fan of one paragraph sections. Tuxide 06:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds good - given a logo is such a fundamental part of brand recognition it makes sense it should have its own section. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I scanned through looking for an Australian ref the first time and totally missed it (typing 'overseas' and 'international' into cntrl-F but nevermind. Currently it has one sentence. This has to be expanded - how does copyright work here? Was there a squabble? Has there been any interaction? At least going to the Target Australia page and bringing in a litle info. Call it Target Australia' if this is the only country or Overseas if there are others. it doesn't have to be very long - I'd say 4-5 sentences minimum cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Somebody has already added this in, I'll see if I can find a citation for it. I believe the Coles Group has been using it since 1968, the same year the brandmark was made, so this could be informative. If I read your posts correctly, you mentioned having an entire "brief section" on international affairs, any idea what to name it? There are also comments on Talk:Target Corporation#Expansion as per FACfailed as per such a section. Tuxide 00:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OK fair enough. Given that Wikipedia is worldwide, there needs to be clarification on the main article page - a brief section commneting on the name's use worldwide, otherwise simple omission could be seen as US-centric and fails comprehensiveness criteria. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose—Fails the requirement for professional formatting in the ridiculous linking of simple years. Fails 1a (poor prose) and 2 (MOS breaches). Needs copy-editing throughout, preferably by someone who's unfamiliar with it.
- The infobox and the Contents box are just so cluttered. Awful. Infoboxes weren't originally designed for use at the top; we'd much prefer a photo.
- Any ideas for headings? I really see this as two articles in one: An article about the parent company and one about its main retailing subsidiary; thus I don't personally consider this article stable. I don't know what you would have an image of here, Microsoft has its infobox on the top and it's a featured article. This is an article about an organization, after all. Tuxide 23:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Fix periods at the end of captions (see MOS). Some captions are way too long. Move some info into the main text.
- "went back to"—It's not wrong, but is just inelegant and informal in this register. "returned".
- Redundant alsos all over the place.
- Remove USD after the first occurrence, please. We know by then. In any case, the "D" is redundant.
- "carrying goods over multiple years"—"Multiple" is not the right word here.
- " In 1973, Stephen Pistner, who had already revived Team Electronics and would later do the same to Montgomery Ward and Ames, was named chief executive officer of the Target chain, and Kenneth A. Macke was named the chain's senior vice president." "Do the same TO"—informal and clumsy. Remove "the chain's".
- "24 unit chain"—You MUST have a hyphen here. Tony 16:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.