As soon as I passed this article as GA, criticism on the talk page started that the article didn't cover in detail allegations of racial discrimination, and additional material was added to the article regarding the racial discrimination accusations. The company was also accused of sexual harassment, sexual discrimination, and sexual orientation discrimination, but there has not been any interest in adding material about these issues. I doubt my own ability at this point to judge how much detail of the specific allegations of racial discrimination plus quotes should be covered in the article. There also are complaints that the article covers such things as the restaurant's menu which is considered "fluff". IMO, I doubt that this article can conform to the GA criteria if much specific material regarding these issues is added, per UNDUE weight and if necessary info like the restaurant's menu is removed. Thanks, MathewTownsend (talk) 00:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have the major contributors been notified of this (you can use {{subst:GARMessage|''ArticleName''|page=''n''}}). Note that you can also conduct an individual reassessment on the articles talk page. AIRcorn(talk)07:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, i've been involved in the talk page discussion, so I am notified. The other main contributor, User:WWB Too, is also aware of the discussion and this GAR, but due to his positive COI in regards to the article, he has decided to stay out of both discussions. So i'll be fielding anything specific.
At this point, what we need is not a delist discussion, but a discussion on which version of the article would more conform to GA requirements, the version with or without the extended controversy and criticism info. I and others are of the opinion that the information is already covered sufficiently enough in the article, but there are a few that feel that because the controversy is about racial discrimination and human rights, it should be given more coverage and weight in the article. Obviously, there are a number of people, myself included, that disagree with this belief. SilverserenC18:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's been quite long enough at this point. The talk page has calmed down, there's no edit warring. We should be good. And i'd like to open up a new peer review to prep the article for FAC and I don't think I can open one with a GAR being open at the same time. I don't remember the rules on that. SilverserenC03:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
