Talk:Bacon/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: CycloneIsaac (talk · contribs) 03:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll review sometime this week.—CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 03:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   I really don't see a need for a "Reception" section for food.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Only one user is editing.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Curing and smoking bacon

• "While there is a tendency on both sides of the Atlantic to serve belly bacon well-done to crispy, back bacon may at first appear undercooked to Americans." Source?

 Removed couldn't find a source and likely isn't true

Cuts of bacon

• Quite a few types of bacon are unsourced.

 Working only missing a ref for one kind now, Middle Bacon everything now has at least one reference or more

Production

• Are you sure there's only that much of info for production?

Y added process section

Around the world

• There are many citations missing.

 Working added some refs

Bacon fat

• "Despite the disputed health risks of excessive bacon grease consumption, it remains popular in the cuisine of the American South." Unsourced.

 Done found a source :)

Alternatives

• Vegetarian bacon is unsourced.

 Done added two refs!

Reception

• There's really no need for this section, it's overkill for a food article.

Considering that I haven't really reviewed the prose yet, this doesn't look good.—CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 18:09, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

There are many unreliable sources in the article (such as About.com, Know Your Meme, and maybe wiseGEEK). There are still many unsourced statements. Because of that, I'm failing this article. You can renominate this later.—CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 22:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)