Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/McDonald's

McDonald's Corporation

Self-nomination. --218.102.93.237 12:05, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

• Object 1) the lead section is too short for an article of this length and does not adequately encapsulate the corporation's history. 2) Cite your sources. 3) The article text is too list-heavy. slambo 14:43, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. This article is *far* from FA quality. The mother-of-all-basic-requirements, adequate lead and reference sections, is not fulfilled. Moreover, the article is almost entirely comprised of lists, and the structure is next to non-existant. The "Quick Facts" and "History" sections must be disposed of and rewritten into coherent prose. The "Overview" section lacks cohesion in parts (the text does not really flow logically from one sentence to the next).Also reconsider the order of the different sections in the article. I doubt the article is entirely comprehensive; there is little to no mention of McDonald's publicity and corporate image campaigns (except for the caption of the pixelated "i'm lovin' it" picture), for example. You'd think that'd deserve it's own section. Phils 15:29, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
• Send to Peer Review. I see many things that a FAC should have, but not present in the article. My problems are already mentioned above, so I would suggest to sent it to the Peer Review. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:25, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object 1) Not sure about the relevancy of the quick facts section as being a suitable introduction to an important article. 2) Certainly featured article material, and found the slang section appropriate, but this perhaps could be interpreted into a different section, rather than having a bulleted section all of its own. 3) The layout is jarring, too many lists. --Knucmo2 18:02, 23 May 2005 (UTC) (TALK)