Talk:BLT cocktail/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dwaipayanc (talk · contribs) 22:56, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• Overall, we are missing the timeline in the history section and in the lead. When was (approximately) the drink first noted to be made? Or, at least, was noted in mainstream media?
• The history section starts with "Another variety of the BLT cocktail was invented in Aspen, Colorado". Why another? What is the other variety? The reader does not know yet.
• Also, when were these versions reported?
• "The acronym, BLT, here stands for the ingredients which include tomato, liquor, and bacon." But in the lead, BLT stood for bacon, lettuce, and tomato. So, "here" means somewhere else?
• The history section rather reads like a section on different kinds of the drink. Without any dates (or time comparison), it is not possible to see why the section name is history.
• Again, in analysis section too, we need dates for the reviews. Bye the way, all along, by dates I am not meaning the exact dates always; at least the year should be given.
• "Woman's Day magazine featured the concoction by Thrasher in its article..." what is Thrasher?
• " part of an introduction to the art of dining event..." quite vague. Which particular event?--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:56, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Response by Cirt to GA Review

1. Added dates to the history section and the lead. Organized the History section by chronological order.
2. Specified when these versions were reported.
3. Fixed this issue with the acronym, thank you for pointing this out.
4. Made this a bit clearer. Added dates and time comparision to the History section.
5. Added dates for the reviews in the Analysis section. Added Month/Year or just Year for most dates.
6. Thrasher was mentioned twice previously in the article. This is Todd Thrasher. I added his full name for this instance, again, as well.
7. Fixed this to make it less vague. Clarified this was a specification by the newspaper.

Thanks very much for your helpful comments, — Cirt (talk) 04:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry for this delay. I think all the points raised by me on 27 May 2013 have been addressed. However, some new observations:
• The history section starts with a review from July 2009 (The Oregonian ). So a reader might think 2009 was the year of first notable appearance of the drink. However, in the Analysis section we see that Boston Globe mentioned BLT cocktail as early as 2005. So, in my opinion, the history section needs more work. When was its first notable appearance? (if info is available). Was it noted to be invented by someone somewhere?
• The article (except the lead), is pretty much collection of information from different reviews. I understand that it is a relatively new drink, and information may be less available, Yet, comparing with another GA cocktail article Caesar (cocktail), the BLT cocktail seems to lack the story. Analysis section of course would have mentions of reviewers and reviews, but History section probably needs some different flow of prose.
• The article meets all other GA criteria, except what is noted above (1a: I don't find it much clear). I may be wrong in my assessment. As of now, I will be happy if a second reviewer comes here and helps in GA assessment. Meanwhile we can keep it on hold. What say?--Dwaipayan (talk) 01:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Response by Cirt to 2nd set of comments from GA Reviewer

Reply: Yes please. I think some easy fixes can be done to move some stuff around and add more in chronological order, to address your concerns. I'll keep you posted, — Cirt (talk) 02:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

1. I moved the 2005 report from The Boston Globe out of main body article text because it was a reference to a soup, not a drink. So now at this point everything should be in chronological order. I'll do some more research to try to find more substantive secondary source coverage from earlier than 2009, but I'm not sure if I'll find anything. Therefore, at that point in time, this article really will be simply a good representation of the secondary source coverage of the topic. — Cirt (talk) 23:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
2. I re-checked NewsBank again. The oldest they go back for anything on "BLT cocktail", is 2009, mostly the coverage of the Associated Press. — Cirt (talk) 00:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
3. Went back and re-checked Google News Archive again. Everything relevant from there is already included in the article and cited in References. — Cirt (talk) 00:06, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
4. Looked through database LexisNexis again. Didn't find anything new not yet in the article already. — Cirt (talk) 00:18, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
5. Researched through the database Westlaw again. Haven't yet come across anything not yet already in the article. — Cirt (talk) 00:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, this article meets GA criteria.--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much, — Cirt (talk) 02:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)