# Talk:Pearson's Candy Company

On first reading

references: why notes and not references. see WP:CITE and WP:RS
for international readers is it worth explaining the meaning of Candy in the article, and what it can mean elsewhere. This I would see as coming under notes.
Pearson's is among the top 100 global confectionery companies - referenced by an article that is not accessible to the reader and is dated 2003, is a later more accessible one available.
the today before Cadbury, I am not sure what is meant by it.
good info box, good images.
The first review seems to be full of do this; improve that, but that is I am afraid the nature of the beast. It is a subject I knew nothing about and now I do, it was informative and interesting, sometimes a difficult combination. On a personal note I would like to see a wider selection of references and ones that I as a reader can access. I will ask others to take a look. Well done you know how to put together an article for wikipedia, long may you edit. Edmund Patrick ( confer  work) 20:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments:
That reference style is common: see section 4.5.3 of WP:CITE.  Would changing "Bibliography" to"References" be helpful?  To my knowledge, WP:RS does not address referencing styles.
Candy has so many types; an explicit explanation of candy would be unproductively long.  Given that the Pearson's products vary greatly from one another, I thought to would be easiest to let the "description" field of the table define the products.
Unfortunately, industry surveys -- especially those covering such a large industry on a global scale -- are much like censuses in that performing them every year would be prohibitively expensive and wasteful (meaningful changes typically take several years to emerge).  These surveys cost thousands of dollars per copy, so I'm afraid a more-easily accessible (i.e. online) version doesn't exist.
When the name dispute was on-going (1970s), the company that owned the "7-UP" trademark was the "American Bottling Company".  The company has merged/acquired numerous times since then, thus the "today" referring to the current successor company holding the trademark ( Cadbury Schweppes).
Unlike public firms, privately-held companies don't have obligations to disclose any information whatsoever.  That we have two magazine articles, an industry survey and three books, among other sources, is pretty amazing and quite broad sourcing - especially given this context.  It's unfortunate that there are not more online sources, but books typically tend to be more reliable. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 20:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
part two:

references, agreed notes are acceptable just to me always seem short information.
Candy: I was thinking along the lines of candy (usa) generic word for (eg) sweets (uk) or something like that. A complete list would be an article in itself, (now there's a thought!)
surveys I appreciate (a good comparison with decade held census) what would be excellent is a wall street journal / financial times ref to the same statement, but...
today - maybe define as owner today or today held by ?
I agree with  in relation to private companies (and some public when they can) references can be in short supply.
I will refer GA to another for a look. Thanks for the clarifications re references and the work. Edmund Patrick ( confer  work) 07:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to add that I've found the list of Top 100 candy companies online if you'd like to update the reference: http://www.allbusiness.com/wholesale-trade/merchant-wholesalers-nondurable/448996-1.html Somno (talk) 03:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I've removed references to "candy" (except where it's part of a proper noun) in favour of "confectionery", which is more universal amongst English variants and, technically, a more appropriate word.
I added the name of the precursor company (American Bottling Company) to give "today" a more obvious context.  I don't want to go too much further, though, as I think the current wording has a nice balance of brevity and informativeness; I don't want to violate summary style by getting too detailed about the unrelated soda stuff.
The Allbusiness link appears to be a highly truncated version and I don't know whether Allbusiness has rights to post it; this makes me slightly uncomfortable with it (per WP:COPYRIGHT, we shouldn't knowingly link to a copyvio).  If you don't share the concern, however, I suppose I'm ok with adding the link as a convenience. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 13:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
What a dilemma,  the link does show that Pearsons are in the top 100 (99th actually), but I can also understand ЭLСОВВОLД's concerns about the site. IMHO the link has to stay for the reader to be able to verify this important fact, using a scale that they will understand, and in some cases recognise other companies so compare. Edmund Patrick ( confer  work) 19:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the article does indeed say 99th.  The link is added; I suppose readers are free to make their own determinations of legitimacy and, of course, can always go to a library to verify/access the complete version. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Just a note, the "Pearson Family" section is awfully similar to the Pearson company's history page. Not sure which came first but a few sentences appear to be copied word for word. http://www.pearsonscandy.com/history.aspx  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.162.107 (talk) 11:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 
after checking % against percentage I am happy.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
I would like where it is in the top 100 mentioned clearly as where it is is a valid point of information , but that is just me.
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: 
well done thanks for the discussions and the learning. Edmund Patrick ( confer  work) 22:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Pearson's Candy Company. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070628015159/http://www.pearsonscandy.com/about_us.cfm to http://www.pearsonscandy.com/about_us.cfm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:35, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


### Pearson's Candy Company
Article (edit | visual edit | history) ·  Article talk (edit | history) ·  Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
 Result: Kept Issues seem to be dealt with and what consensus that can be found here is that it currently meets the GA criteria. AIRcorn (talk) 10:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
I am troubled by the fact that the references seems to be in such bad shape:

Ref #1 is using outdated info from 2008.
Ref #2 is dead.
And both of the preceding sources are used to identify key people (President, CEO, etc.) in the infobox.

Ref #3 is dated from 2003 and therefore the information it is sourcing is outdated.
Ref #4 is using outdated info from 2007 - Pearson's was sold in 2011, they don't even have the same owners anymore.
Ref #6 is dead.
Ref #7 is dead.
That leaves a total of 3 references - #5, #8, #9 - that seem to be valid. If this article came up for a GA Review today, it would not get that status at this time.  The references need to be almost completely overhauled before any further GA Reassessment consideration can take place. Shearonink (talk) 07:27, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm curt, but this is not particularly helpful.  Good Articles are assessed based on the Good Article Criteria, not opinions from the ether ("If this article came up for a GA Review today, it would not get that status at this time.")  Please identify with specificity (number and subsection, if applicable), as you have not done, which criterion/criteria you feel is/are no longer met. Эlcobbola talk 15:31, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
I am sorry that my comments were unhelpful, I did not intend to be unhelpful.  I have struck through my GA Reviewing comments but am leaving them so the throughline of our responses will be maintained.
Specifically, the criteria which are not being met by this article in its present state are the following:
Criteria 2B: all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;
The references for this article are overwhelmingly stale and/or outdated, so any statements are not attached to the cited sources.
Criteria 1B: it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
Fails this because the statements made in the lead section 1)That Pearson's is in the Top 100 and 2)It was sold in 2011 - rely on dead links for verification.  Also, I tried to find verification that Pearson's is in the present Top 100 (of confectioners) and that seems to not be the case at this time.
Criteria 3A: it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
Fails this criteria because, again, the cited references cannot back up the main aspects of the topic.
I hope this is more helpful. I do stand by my conclusion above that the references need to be almost completely overhauled before any further GA Reassessment can occur. Shearonink (talk) 16:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Keep The above is, frankly, nonsense.  In order:
"The references for this article are overwhelmingly stale and/or outdated, so any statements are not attached to the cited sources."
WP:RS, and indeed criterion 2B, relates to the reliablity of the source, not to whether the information referenced is up to date.  Shearonink provided no cite to the WP:RS section that prohibits "stale and/or outdated" sources, as, indeed, such a section does not exist. WP:CS, for example, says "Do not delete a citation merely because the URL is not working. Follow these steps when you encounter a dead URL being used as a reliable source to support article content." (emphasis mine), which implicitly establishes that "reliability" and being "a dead link" are not mutually exclusive.
"Fails this [criterion 1B] because the statements made in the lead section 1)That Pearson's is in the Top 100 and 2)It was sold in 2011 - rely on dead links for verification.  Also, I tried to find verification that Pearson's is in the present Top 100 (of confectioners) and that seems to not be the case at this time."
The manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation do not prohibit dated information and, conversely, do not require contemporaneous information.  The manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation do not prohibit dead links.  Again, that a link is dead does not mean it is not reliable per my cite above, WP:DEADREF and WP:DEADLINK.
"Fails this criteria (sic) because, again, the cited references cannot back up the main aspects of the topic."
Shearonink has not indicated which "main aspects" are uncited.  Yet again, that a given reference may be dead 1) does not mean the article does not "addre[ss] the main aspects of the topic" and 2) as per above, is not prohibited.
Although I believe the concerns related to GA status are entirely without merit, I have updated the article in the interest of its improvement.  There is now only a single dead link, which I understand to be perfectly acceptable, and other information is as contemporary as is available for a closely-held firm. Эlcobbola talk 17:26, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
This is a Reassessment, a chance for a GA article to be improved, I wasn't voting Delete in my previous comments and am sorry that they have been interpreted to be so.  Per my referencing comments, I was thinking of the WP:IRS section regarding age matters.  I am just glad that the article has now been updated, that is what is important to me.  I like Pearson's Candy, saw the article had been listed as possibly needing a GAR since 2014 and thought it deserved a community Reassessment and some possible improvements - that's all.  Thanks to User:elcobbola for all their hard work. Shearonink (talk) 18:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
"In 1985, the company was purchased by Larry Hassler and Judith Johnston, the current CEO and COO, respectively."  I did adjust this sentence to reflect that Hassler & Johnston bought the company in 1985 but that they are not the current CEO & COO.  (Michael Keller is the current CEO/President.) Shearonink (talk) 18:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Keep – I think that the problems have been dealt with sufficiently. All text appears to be accurately sourced, and the article is broad and well written. I would maintain this article's current status.StoryKai (talk) 19:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

67 employees (company highest) in 1934.  This citation already used in article—"Business Rises for Candy Firm". The Minneapolis Star. Vol. 27, no. 133. January 21, 1935. p. 10 – via Newspapers.com. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:44, 17 November 2018 (UTC)