Jump to content

Talk:Beefsteak (banquet)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Cptnono (talk) 07:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notes
  • Lead
    • The lead seems a little short. This might be because it is in one paragraph. However, it does summarize the key points of the article from what I can see. Can you think of anything else that would be appropriate to ensure that it can act as a standalone summary?
  • Origins
    • It is common enough practice and mandated by some editors to have a citation directly follow any quote. "...'when Tammany Hall [got] a setback, beefsteaks [got] a setback'..". Move the citation in. Also, this line left me wanting a little bit more. Is it possible to expand on it or do you think it sufficiently expresses the point without straying too far off topic?
  • Early organization
    • "1st Avenue and Nineteenth Street in Manhattan." The MoS says to spell out anything over 9 but it also says that when numbers are compared that they should be laid out the same. Should this be "First Avenue and Nineteenth Street"? I am not clear on the MoS here but it is something to look into.WP:ORDINAL
    • There are a series of measurements without conversions. They are in a quote so formatting might be a hassle. Conversions are appropriate, though.
  • Dining style
  • References
  • Other
    • Images are appropriate and captioned. Consider alt text even though it is not mandatory.
      •  Done. Alt text added.
    • No dabs or dead links.[1][2]
    • I noticed that you tend to add quotations when it may not be needed. Plagiarism is of course a concern but consider if the citation is sufficient or if a slight rewording as a paraphrase would flow better. This could be just my personal preference.
  • Take a look at adding non-breaking spaces between numbers and their unit of measurement/street.

Cptnono (talk) 00:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware this was your first attempt at a GA, Fluffernutter. I probably do not do it like many editors since I am sometimes too lazy to always use the templates. But overall, this is an example of an article that meets the standards. It is not FA by any means but it at least embodies what makes a "good" article even if it is not perfect. I would like to see the lead longer and think that not having it so prevents it from ever being FA. However, we can only work with what we have source wise, and you have crafted what is available into a damn decent overview of the subject. I personally believe that if the sources are not available then some articles simply will not ever be GA. This is not the case here since you have found some good sources for some good verification. And it made me hungry. I am happy to pass this. Nice work. So:

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. 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):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail: