Talk:PopUp Bagels

Review

Bubblegum111, good start! View your page's history to see if I made any edits or left any templates. Things to focus on include:

• Remove promotional and judgmental tone.
• Remove ephemeral information (things likely to change this year).

When you've addressed any concerns I've raised on the page (or here) please ping me for an additional review. -Reagle (talk) 15:32, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi Professor! I have addressed your comments/concerns; this is ready for another review. I had one question. Should the pasted sentence below be removed? Is it ephemeral?

With ten existing brick-and-mortar locations up the East Coast, the franchise has announced plans to open new permanent locations in Florida, Massachusetts, and North Carolina this year. Bubblegum111 (talk) 16:17, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi Professor!

After asking for help in the Teahouse, I've received the promotional content tag again on my page. I think I should edit this paragraph to remove the puffery:

"Popup Bagels has won numerous awards and is known for its nontraditional "rip-and-dip" serving suggestion of ripping off pieces of bagel and dipping them into cream cheese." into "PopUp Bagels is known for its nontraditional "rip-and-dip" serving suggestion of ripping off pieces of bagel and dipping them into cream cheese."

@Reagle Bubblegum111 (talk) 14:53, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

2nd review

@Bubblegum111, you've made a good step forward, but there were many issues, including continuing the issue of tone. I'm concerned about you falling too far behind, so I've done many edits and believe it is now ready for move to mainspace.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ABubblegum111%2FPopUp_Bagels&diff=1280981696&oldid=1280272120

Please move it to mainspace according to the direction/links in the syllabus and WikiEd training. Reagle (talk) 15:46, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Peer review

Hi @Bubblegum111 I reviewed the article and I think you did a great job! You can see my reviews here. I really like the topic you chose and how you structured it. I have some suggestions for the article, but overall great work! Anniehats 00:13, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

---

1. Notable topic and Gap Filling: The accolades section proves that this is a notable topic and is worthy of an article.

2. Well-Organized Structure: The structure is well-organized with adequate sections.

3. Writing Quality:

Clarity: The writing is clear and accessible to a greater audience. Understandability: Grammar is good throughout. Precision: Could use some concision, for example you can make the locations section just a list.

4. Appropriate Length: Again, you can make it more concise, especialy in the "business strategy" section.

5. Neutral Point of View: You maintain a neutral POV throughout, and any instances of potential promotional tone are well sourced.

6. Verifiability and Sources: Well sourced. Try to add some more hyperlinks, for example linking the New York Times Wikipedia page when mentioned

7. Illustrative Media: Maybe add their logo if you can? Or a picture of a location, but I understand your ability to do this may be limited

Overall, I thought this was an informative and well-sourced article and highlights the importance of the topic. I would just make it a bit more concise, other than that I think you're good to go :) Gabrinaldi (talk) 20:58, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Online Communities

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2025 and 15 April 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bubblegum111 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Anniehats, Gabrinaldi.

— Assignment last updated by Rjalloh (talk) 18:58, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Promotional Tone

@Bubblegum111, as you mentioned above, it looks like you a few good edits from Wikipedians. @Theroadislong added the promotional tone tag and removed the accolades section. You had two sources in the accolades section, one from globenewswire, which republishes press releases (not approriate), and masslive.com (which I thought might pass muster). Ask any questions or propose any changes in this section and hopefully people will give you feedback on how to remove the tone template and what, if any, can be recovered from the accolades section. - Reagle (talk) 20:12, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Help

Hi @Theroadislong. I saw that you added the promotional tag on my article. Thank you for taking a look at it, I appreciate it! I have definitely struggled on making sure I remain neutral yet including important information. Would you mind giving me some guidance on what should be removed or what I can improve on for the tag to be reviewed? Thanks so much! Bubblegum111 (talk) 14:28, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm not them, but I think what you want to do is maybe reduce the quoting -- that is often an issue in promotional articles -- attribute more clearly stuff company founders say in interviews, as they're not independent sources about themselves and Wikipedia tries to avoid repeating them blindly, and make sure to avoid praising them unless you attribute the praise to other sources, which Wikipedia can summarize.

Also "Rise to fame" is probably not the most neutral section heading, although to be honest I can't think of a better one. Other than that, it mostly looks fine to me (although I made a few changes). Mrfoogles (talk) 05:48, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Also, just so you know it is an option to just remove the tag if you're confident in disagreeing with it, even if you did write the article -- although you should try to make sure first. Anyone can put them on, anyone can take them off, basically. Mrfoogles (talk) 05:49, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Scope Creep's excision

@Scope creep has excised a bunch of content that I think went too far. For example, the excised information includes how they prepare the bagels, which was sourced to a NYT article. I think if they have concerns about particular sentences or organization or tone, those edits could be made or suggested on the talk page (or here). But because of the Keeps they nuked a lot of content. Reagle (talk) 12:29, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

@Reagle: That content wasn't removed because of the keep !votes. That had nothing to do with it. It was removed because it reads like company plans being shared with an audience that needs to hear it. It was entirely unsuitable for Wikipedia, both in tone and content as its highly promotional and breaks WP:NPOV. It won't be going back in. I spent close to 10 years on the coin noticeboard and also I'm an NPP/AFC article reviewer for more than 10 years. I worked on many thousands of company articles, written in a way that reports directly from the mouth of the ceo, that are extremly business friendly and puts a gloss on the article to promote the businesse, similar to that article, breaking the Wikipedia Terms of Use. That is fine, but if you want to write about that, go ahead, but do it off of Wikipedia, e.g. on substack. During the interim, the article was improved by univolved editors on a WP:HEYMANN update during the WP:AFD and is now in a fairly decent condition. I would suggest its left in that form. scope_creep^Talk 14:44, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Never heard of the WP:HEYMANN jargon before! 🙂 I appreciate all the work for Wikipedia you've done over the years, and NPP and CIO can be a thankless task with a lot of attendant grief. It can also make people a bit brittle and lose sight of WP:Please do not bite the newcomers, WP:Assume Good Faith, and that no one has WP:Ownership of content. Take care. Reagle (talk) 17:33, 10 April 2025 (UTC)