Talk:Beefsteak (banquet)/GA1

GA Review

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

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

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?
    •  Not done. I know that the lead is short - it's been pointed out to me before and I have tried to flesh it out as much as possible - but I simply can't think of anything else to put in there that wouldn't unbalance it. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• 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?
    •  Done. Citation moved, and a little more detail added to the sentence to explain why Tammany Hall was important. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
• 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
    •  Done. As you say, the MOS is a bit iffy on this, but I've changed to "First" and "Nineteenth" - at least now they match. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
  • There are a series of measurements without conversions. They are in a quote so formatting might be a hassle. Conversions are appropriate, though.
    •  Done. I knew there was a conversion template, I just somehow never thought to use it! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
• Dining style
  • Consider linking to Prohibition in the United States in this section instead of below. I am overall impressed with the wikilinking. Not too much but not too little.
    •  Done. Link moved (and thanks for making me notice that I'd originally linked to the general Prohibition page instead of the "in the US" one). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
• References
  • Ref 1 is used often. Nothing wrong with that but if you want to go for FA I recommend seeing if anything else is available. This will help expand the article so can only help.
  • You switch date formats within the refs. This is not disallowed (it is uniform) but the jury seems to be out on the practice so consider keeping an eye on that to see if it needs a quick cleanup.
    •  Done. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Consider trying to find a page number for The New Yorker in case it goes dead.
    •  Done. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
• 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.
    •  Done. You're totally right and I hadn't realized how much I do it until I re-read the article through the eyes of your review. I've tried to de-quotify some of the more unnecessary quotes and leave only the ones where it simply can't be said better. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
• Take a look at adding non-breaking spaces between numbers and their unit of measurement/street.
  •  Done. Added nbsp's between street names and streets, which was the only case I could spot where they were needed. If I missed noticing some others, please let me know. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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: