Talk:French fries/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Kostas20142 (talk · contribs) 17:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	All relevant issues found during this review have been fixed.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. 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).	All relevant issues found during this review have been fixed per the comments below.
	2c. it contains no original research.	The article contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No copyright infringements found in the article. The Copyvio detector reported a potential violation, however it is a backwards copy. The findings has been added to the talk page to avoid future confusion.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	All main aspects of the topic are covered. Improvements have been made per the sections below.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The article stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	There have been a few issues but all resolved.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Not affected by edit wars.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All images are in commons and appropriately tagged. There are no non-free images that would require a fair use rationale.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	All relevant, captions are ok.
	7. Overall assessment.	The article currently meets the GA criteria.

Comments

• links

1. Please remove Poutines and steak frites from see also section; They are already linked and mentioned in prose.

   Frietmuseum as well  Done

2. many articles are linked more than once. For example:
   1. McDonald's:3+  Done
   2. salt, vinegar, mayonnaise: 2  Done
   3. Onion rings  Done
   4. Flemish  Done

Removed Duplinks of all I could, please tell me if there are any more. AmericanAir88 (talk) 00:41, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

1. Please keep only one each (excluding infobox's if you wish so)  Done

2. Accompaniments section is severely overlinked. Practically, almost the whole section is blue. Please keep only the most important ones and remove any all the duplicated, per above.  Done Removed many obvious links, while keeping more rarer foods.

Rephrases

1. The exact times of the two baths depend on the size of the potatoes(in preparation) → The exact duration of each of the two baths depends on the size of the potatoes  Done

MOS:WORDS related

• The Etymology section appears to be a bit WP:EDITORIAL. Could you rephrase these parts?  Done I reworked the sentence starters and an unnecessary sentence. AmericanAir88 (talk) 00:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
• Belgium section includes weasel words such as some claim that, a common belief is, and WP:ALLEGED words such supposedly, which compromise the article's neutrality. Please re-write the section after reading MOS:WORDS.  Done

Other

• United States section is unreferenced.  Done
• Techniques section should be incorporated into the rest of the article and removed.  Done
• In infobox France and Belgium are presented as the two potential countries of origin, however in prose, Spain is also included.  Done
• I really have my concerns regarding structure. Culinary origin section is consisted of 4 sub-sections, of which, Subsequent history appears a bit unrelated to the rest, Spain not well-connected with the rest. Could you please fix this? (or try another structure)  Done - Merged the two and paraphrased AmericanAir88 (talk) 01:37, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@Kostas20142: I will get right on it. AmericanAir88 (talk) 01:27, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• I found another"citation needed" in health aspects  Done
• Please take a look at the supplementary comments below and discuss them

I'll get right on it. AmericanAir88 (talk) 16:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

additional comments by David notMD

COMMENTS: Health aspects needs details and citations on the discontinuation of partially unsaturated vegetable oils for purpose of eliminating trans fatty acids. Too many countries - does this article really need Scandinavia? What is missing entirely is some sense of consumption per capita by country, and international trade. If there are 5,000 KFCs and 2,000 McDonalds in China, someone is eating a lot of French fries. Is that from China-grown potatoes of imported frozen from U.S. and Canada? David notMD (talk) 00:29, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done

MORE COMMENTS: What type of potato makes the best French fries? (Hint, https://idahopotato.com/ says its the Russet Burbank, although some chains prefer the Russet Norkotah.) Same site says that potatoes fresh out of the ground can have too high a water content - resulting in soggy fries - so preference is for spuds that have been in storage for a while. Most chains no longer start with fresh potatoes, but rather buy frozen. And you may want to find a way to differentiate true French fries from stuff reconstituted from mashed, dehydrated potato into TaterTots and other abominations. David notMD (talk) 21:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done

INFORMATION SOURCES: The statistics yearbook, page 81, shows that 35% of U.S. production ends up as frozen fries, and which countries exported to, and what is exported. https://www.flipsnack.com/nationalpotatocouncil/2017-potato-statistical-yearbook-final.html The TRADE part of this site https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/crops/vegetables-pulses/potatoes.aspx#potatoes states that in 2009, the U.S. exported three billion pounds of frozen french fries. I believe lower in more recent years, as China now growing more for in-country consumption.

Glad to see this (French fries as business, not just as food) being addressed. I defer to reviewer on what is nice versus necessary to complete the GA. David notMD (talk) 04:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

@Kostas20142: Any more? AmericanAir88 (talk) 03:05, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Closing comments

@AmericanAir88: Congratulations, the article has been improved significantly during this review and can pass the GA review. Special thank to David notMD for his useful comments suggestions and edits. This collaboration has been productive, and would be really nice if you both worked on improving the article further (why not FA). --Kostas20142 (talk) 12:45, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

@Kostas20142: Thank you so much! I will highly consider FA. Do not hesitate to ask if there is anything I can do for you. AmericanAir88 (talk) 21:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC)