# Talk:Winmark

This review is transcluded from Talk:Winmark/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Sagecandor (talk · contribs) 21:24, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I'll do this one. Sagecandor (talk) 21:24, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


### Successful good article nomination
I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of December 22, 2016, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Good size introduction. Good writings style here, nice and concise and succinct wording presentation. Good sentence structure and size per sentence. Going forwards, I would suggest breaking up the "History" section into two smaller subsections and keeping the larger "history" section as the parent section for those. "Franchises" section: be careful about tense changes here, but overall pretty good.
2. Verifiable?: Cited for all statements asserted in the article to in-line citations. Good format of citations and good presentation for references section. Great job with making sure to avoid Wikipedia:Link rot for the future, nice work.
3. Broad in coverage?: Article is very thorough, covering all major aspects of the topic including history, franchises, subsidiaries, good infobox, good introduction section.
4. Neutral point of view?: Though the article topic is indeed a publicly-listed company, it does not have any promotional tone that comes across. Appears to present history and francise information in a matter of fact, neutral manner.
5. Stable? Checking stability article edit history is stable going back to September 2016. Talk page doesn't have any ongoing conflicts or problems.
6. Images?: One image used File:Winmark logo.png, public domain as just letters.
Encyclopedic tone. Educational article about a large publicly traded company. Not promotional in nature which is good. Nicely done ! If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it Good article reassessed. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Sagecandor (talk) 04:22, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the good article review, Sagecandor (talk · contribs)! I'll work on making improvements to the article based on your feedback in the "Well written?" section. Cunard (talk) 08:36, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

What I think should be changed (include citations):
Hi there, I'm a PR contracted by the Winmark Corporation. The team flagged a number of inaccuracies and out-of-date information in their article. I was advised to submit an edit request instead of changing the page directly. Citable material for the below is provided in the corresponding section. 
CHANGE: "In 2000, John Morgan replaced Dahlberg as CEO and renamed the company to Winmark in 2001. Morgan rescued Winmark from the verge of bankruptcy by selling financially failing franchise concepts and stores and replacing the management team." 
REASON: This is explicitly promotional of a given individual, and not cited. 
CHANGE: Its subsidiary Wirth Business Credit is a small-business supplies leasing company.

REASON: Wirth Business Credit is no longer a Winmark subsidiary. 
CHANGE:  In 2016, Winmark had a $1 billion market share in the $17 billion resell industry through its 1,170 franchisees.
REASON: Out of date info: store count has now reached 1,291
CHANGE: CEO Brett Heffes is now also Chairman of Board of Directors

Why it should be changed:
Statistics are no longer accurate and several years out of date. 

References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):
For current count of stores, sales, other topline figures: 

For Heffes Board Appointment: 

Winmark update (talk) 15:49, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

 Declined None of the proposed changes are supported by citations to reliable sources. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:24, 1 May 2023 (UTC)