Talk:24 hour McDelivery

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Undue Wieght[edit]

The text below has been removed from the article as it gives undue weight to the subject. It may be condensed or re-added later if and when it has more context and proper weight in reference to additional copy on other aspects of the subject.

If the text meets the requirements to be condensed or re-added, it--especially the second paragraph--will also need a copyedit for clarity. I believe changes something like what I've incorporated into the following suggested revision of the second paragraph will more clearly convey the intended message.
As of (or, if more accurate, "Prior to") August 21 2009, fifteen separate occupational injury claims against McDelivery had been reported to the Labour Department. The (Labour Department Authority or some other "Authority") Authority is investigating the claims and, pending legal advice from the Department of Justice, may decide to sue Rixon for violation of Labour Ordinances.
The original version was confusing to me, mostly due to word/phrase order.
  • "...15 cases of occupational injuries claims"
Due to word order, this could be interpreted as fifteen boxes or trunks("case" meaning "container") full of an undisclosed number of claims. If I've understood the meaning correctly, "case" and "claim" are probably not both necessary, as they mean pretty much the same thing in this type of context. I believe what might be meant by "case" in this context is incident.
  • "...of McDelivery"
I took to mean against McDelivery, but one additional alternative intended meaning could be "by McDelivery employees"
  • "...is investigating the claims and, pending legal advice from the Department of Justice, may decide to sue Rixon for violation of Labour Ordinances"
As written in the current phrase order, it wasn't clear if the decision whether to sue will be based in some part on the legal advice the Authority receives from the DoJ, or if the issue is that a suit may be brought against Rixon for violating Labour Ordinances after they were given advice by the DoJ
Of course, once the outcomes are known, everything should be written to avoid use of future tense. :) Hananekosan (talk) 02:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

GFDL[edit]

If this was transwikied as it appears it needs to acknowledge the source. Rich Farmbrough, 22:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC).

Request for translation of sources[edit]

I would like to request that the editor who cited the sources in Chinese give an English translation of the text in the sources that pertains to the text in the it is said to support. Thank you.-- KeithbobTalk 19:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the text that connects McDonalds to the topic as it is not substantiated by the single English language source. If we can have a translation of the Chinese language sources then we can add text to that effect according to the sources. The claim that McDonalds is/was culpable and negligent is a potentially libelous claim and we need verifiable sources to make such a claim.-- KeithbobTalk 19:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist}} template (see the help page).