Talk:Avocado cake

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Avocado cake/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wilhelmina Will (talk · contribs) 03:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

GA criteria

Well-written:

With the issue below addressed, the article now complies with MOS policies with regards to grammar, along with general structural layout. Herein dwells the greatest dictionary ever composed! (talk) 10:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

Verifiable with no original research:

The article is well-referenced, adhering to a decently-sized list of reputable sources. No signs of original research. Herein dwells the greatest dictionary ever composed! (talk) 07:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)

(c) it contains no original research

Broad in its coverage:

As acknowledged in the discussion below, the article covers all encyclopedically relevant aspects of its topic for which reliable information was readily available. Herein dwells the greatest dictionary ever composed! (talk) 07:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

A neutral tone is kept, throughout the article. Herein dwells the greatest dictionary ever composed! (talk) 07:43, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

With the exception of some minor repeated vandalism back in January, there does not appear to have been any disruptive fluctuations to the article's content since at least last December. Herein dwells the greatest dictionary ever composed! (talk) 07:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Both images used in this article serve relevant illustrative purposes. As both are trusted by the Wikimedia Commons, I think it's safe to say that no fair use trouble will arise from their usage in Wikipedia. Herein dwells the greatest dictionary ever composed! (talk) 07:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

• Advance notice – Just so you know in advance, when creating and expanding this article, I pretty much "used up" many of the reliable source coverage about the topic in the English language that is available online. Some sources essentially report the same content in different manners. Additional websites are available, but do not constitute Wikipedia's definition of reliable sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:13, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

– Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

• N.b. After a bunch more digging, I found some more usable reliable sources and have expanded the article in bits and pieces, using bits and pieces/mentions from various sources. Sources are essentially "running out" at this time, although a few more are available but paywalled, which I don't have access to. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:42, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• No problem; if you'd like I'll save this review until after I've completed the other four I signed on for, so you've got more time to really iron it out. ;) Herein dwells the greatest dictionary ever composed! (talk) 08:25, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments

• In "Overview", where it begins with: "Avocado is a main ingredient in avocado cake, along with other typical cake ingredients,[1][2] and various varieties of avocados may be used", I might recommend splitting the part about various varieties into a separate sentence. It feels like a self-containing portion of the sentence as is. Herein dwells the greatest dictionary ever composed! (talk) 07:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

•  Done. Makes sense. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:55, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Herein dwells the greatest dictionary ever composed! (talk) 10:51, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

The article qualifies as GA, now. I apologize for the long wait, and finish with saying, "Congratulations!" Herein dwells the greatest dictionary ever composed! (talk) 10:53, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Is it just me?

Is it just me? Am I the only one who is astounded that "avocado cake" has been considered "notable" enough to have its own article in Wikipedia? Maybe I'm really out of touch, but I would have considered "avocado cake" to be an item that might "trend" for a couple of years in food-oriented blogs, and then be quietly forgotten. Granted, the article is well written, has proper references, nice illustrations, and Wikipedia has nearly limitless space, but really ---- "avocado cake"? Akhooha (talk) 17:34, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Reviving this because I just came across this article and was shocked at how pointless it is. The whole article can be boiled down to "Avocado [confectionary] are [confectionary] prepared using avocado as a primary ingredient"—don't need a Wikipedia article to tell you that! It should be deleted or modified at least to show what about using avocado makes the confection particularly noteworthy. --100.40.62.139 (talk) 03:34, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Avocado cake

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. CMD (talk) 06:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Procedural GAR following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avocado cake. CMD (talk) 06:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.