Wikipedia:Peer review/In-N-Out/archive1

In-N-Out

After substantial content was added to this article on 17 May 2005, I have been slowly adding more information. I have two questions:

What needs to be done to get this to be a good FA candidate?
Even though references are cited in this article, a large amount of the content is based on either word-of-mouth or personal observations -- which is no surprise since this restaurant chain primary advertises itself by word-of-mouth, and it only sporadically promotes itself through conventional means. What do you suggest we should do about this content?

Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:22, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some things that struck me at first glance were...

I think there should be more information on the history (what happened between 1948 and 1984 or 1984 and 2004, that's a lot of time)
More information on the company would be nice too ( how many stores do they have? what is the estimated revenue? (since it's private that may be hard to find).
Stylistically, there are lots of lists (I'm not sure how the secret menu could be delistified though).
Sentences like, "In-N-Out strives to provide excellent customer service." make the article seem a little too much like an advertisement.
Has there been controversy sorrounding the bible quotes? Sounds like that could be further adressed (at least discussed in corporate culture).
Non-website references would be nice
The "legends" in the trivia section shouild go unless they are quite widespread or they have some basis in realtiy.

Hope some of that is useful Broken Segue 03:42, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Wikipedia:Companies, corporations and economic information

It would be nice to see a few more pictures. Perhaps a photo of one of the biblical quotes and closeup of the crossed palm trees. Also, the long list under the "Food" section should probably go into a separate article with only a summary description in the main article, and the same for the "Store layout" section. I would also move both of those sections below the "Corporate culture" section. BlankVerse ∅ 11:28, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In N-Out comes up in movies, like the Big Lebowski, use in film etc could be added to cult following. I agree with the other reviewers about the lists, the really get negative points for excellent prose. --nixie 07:39, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The "Bible quotes" section seems a little out of place, and needs context. What is the history, reason, purpose, etc. of the quotes? It's an interesting tidbit. Also, the sectioning seems excessive, many of the small sections, like "miscellaneous", "Cult following", "Trivia", "Bible quotes", and "Advertising", could be merged into one or a few sections. And the lead could be expanded. Finally, isn't there a lot to be said about health? --Dmcdevit 07:44, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]