# Talk:Black Thunder (chocolate bar)

Yuraku Confectionery Company may be relevant but one of its products is not. Appearing in the DYK/newest articles sections does not imply significant peer review for relevance.
This article looks like marketing. It should be merged with an article for the Yuraku Confectionery Company. YellowLeftHand (talk) 02:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for voicing your concern. Let me try to address the issues seperately:
"Marketing": Perhaps the article appears as marketing, but I assure you, I only wanted to write a decent article about one of my favorite candy bars. I tried to avoid POV statements regarding flavor, and only mentioned the growing popularity as evidenced in the increased sales.
Yuraku Confectionery Company: It's true that there is no article about the Yuraku Confectionery Company; however, the Black Thunder bar has become their signature product. The Japanese Wikiepdia has seperate articles for the Black Thunder Bar and the Yuraku Confectionery Company (though almost half of it is also about the Black Thunder bar). There are many Wikipedia pages about particular candy bars, such as the Milky Way bar or 3 Musketeers (chocolate bar). For more than 200 other examples, see Category:Candy bars.
Notability: As pointed out in the article, sales of the Black Thunder are averaging around 30 million per year; there are 4 or 5 spin-off products; a related line of clothing; a book about the product; and it appeared in association with an Olympic team that the company sponsored in 2008. It may only be sold in Japan, but that doesn't mean it's not notable. Boneyard90 (talk) 02:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I will agree that the article does not need to be deleted. However, it must be simplified. this does not need to be Wikipedia's longest candy bar article.  That this article is longer than the article for candy bar is a little ridiculous. Please simplify.YellowLeftHand (talk) 05:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. A request to remove material in a referenced article. Well, before I do that, consider the following:
The Black Thunder article has information on three other candy bars plus two ice cream bars. So, the one product turned into a line, and the article mentions those, with most of the focus on the flagship product. But for comparable length and quality, I refer you to:
M&M's: An article that, like Black Thunder, describes a (much larger) line of products, though the focus is on the original.
Cadbury Creme Egg
Twix, which has length, but could stand to be re-organized.
Snickers - most candy bar articles are only lightly referenced, but check out Snickers, and you'll see length, quality, and 22 references.
Finally, the Candy bar article is indeed short and trim, but then, it's been assessed as Start-class; and really, such an ubiquitous modern feature of cultures around the world really desrves better treatment, though I'm not sure I'm qualified to do it justice. On the other hand, the Black Thunder article is... well, it's currently un-rated, but I'm hoping someone will think it's more of a B-class. Perhaps it will become Wikipedia's first Featured Article on a commercially sold confectionery product. Boneyard90 (talk) 09:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Indeed this article if very well written and well sourced but much of it seems to be trivial information. Do other market trends, the number of people in the original factory, or that salty foods are considered mature really need to be discussed here? In my opinion, they don't. YellowLeftHand (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, busy time back there around 3 March, and I guess I didn't catch your last comment. Well, perhaps your right, I'll give some thought to trimming the article. I'll re-read the article for irrelevant "market trends" material, but I thought that would be good material for the history of a brand name product (this was my first such article). I included the number of people in the original factory because its part of one of those success stories where people start with almost nothing. And the cultural part about salty flavor? I figured the slogan "The Taste of First Love: Salt and Chocolate" would get alot of head-scratching and snickering if I didn't put in a cultural explanation. But as I said, I'll think about trimming the article down a bit. Boneyard90 (talk) 07:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Black Thunder (chocolate bar)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Doh5678 Talk 16:21, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

*Possibly add a caption to the Main image. Doh5678 Talk 18:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Black Thunder (chocolate bar). 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/20110218044014/http://yurakuseika.typepad.jp/deargirl/2011/01/deargirl-e9db.html to http://yurakuseika.typepad.jp/deargirl/2011/01/deargirl-e9db.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110416062947/http://yurakuseika.typepad.jp/bt/2010/04/ to http://yurakuseika.typepad.jp/bt/2010/04/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722130148/http://yurakuseika.typepad.jp/deargirl/2011/02/post-8714.html to http://yurakuseika.typepad.jp/deargirl/2011/02/post-8714.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) 12:09, 21 July 2017 (UTC)