Talk:Leonard's Bakery/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Viriditas (talk · contribs) 00:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

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

(b) 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:

(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); and

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

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

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

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

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

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	Lead: word repetition. See discussion section below. Fixed by nom. Background and history: wording, narrative structure and order of importance. See discussion section below. Fixed by nom. Background and history: WP:RECENTISM. Fixed WP:PROSELINE. See closing comments.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	Lead: links don't go to logical places or are nonexistent. For example, Portuguese goes to Portuguese cuisine instead of Culture of Portugal; Portuguese immigrants isn't pipe linked to Portuguese immigration to Hawaii; pão doce goes to Portuguese cuisine rather than Portuguese sweet bread. While good arguments could be made for either/or, there needs to be less duplication, more consistency, and logical linking. See also MOS:INTRO and MOS:CONTEXTLINK. Fixed by nom. ✓ done czar ⨹ 22:31, 11 May 2015 (UTC)	Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	OK.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	Oahu County, Continental United States. See discussion below for details. Fixed by nom.	Pass
(c) (original research)	No OR found.	Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	OK.	Pass
(b) (focused)	Link to recipe for malasadas. See discussion below for details. Fixed by nom.	Pass

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

Notes	Result
No neutrality problems.	Pass

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

Notes	Result
Stable, no edit wars or disputes.	Pass

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

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	OK.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	Infobox lacks image_caption parameter, which is perfectly acceptable. Just making a note of it as the caption in this particular infobox is optional per the guidelines.	Pass

Result

Result

Notes

Pass

Awaiting minor changes to third paragraph in "Background and history" section due to WP:RECENTISM language from 2009.[1] Viriditas (talk) 21:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC) Above changes complete. I made a minor copyedit.[2] The article looks good. Future efforts to improve the prose should focus on eliminating the WP:PROSELINE (As of 2011, In 2012, As of 2009, As of 2015). Instead of focusing on dates, focus on ideas, using the topical narrative structure (for example family ownership, types of food, cultural influence) to group the content. Also, try to paraphrase more and quote less. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 08:23, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

@Czar: Viriditas (talk) 03:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Infobox

• The "County" parameter in the infobox says "Oahu", which hasn't been true since 1907. I realize it is linked correctly but shouldn't it say "City and County of Honolulu" or "Honolulu County"? Viriditas (talk) 02:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Lead, Background and history

• This article uses the phrase "continental United States" twice. For various reasons outlined in several different articles, including mainland and Contiguous United States#Hawaii, Hawaii doesn't use that term and prefers to use mainland United States. This is especially true for the Hawaii food print literature which uses the term "mainland" exclusively. Using the phrase "continental United States" in an article deeply connected to the culture of Hawaii, is like using the horrendous term "Frisco" in an article about the San Francisco Bay Area. It's generally discouraged and lacks authenticity. Viriditas (talk) 01:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Fixed this and the others. czar ⨹ 03:22, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• Leonard's Bakery is a Portuguese bakery in Honolulu, Hawaii, known for popularizing the malasada Portuguese doughnut.
  • Calling the malasada a "Portuguese" doughnut is superfluous here for several reasons. Simply call it a "malasada doughnut". It's unnecessary to call it Portuguese here because 1) you've introduced the bakery as Portuguese, and 2) you subsequently explain that Portuguese immigrants brought the doughnut to Hawaii. So it's both adequately explained in the context of the type of bakery and in regards to its origin all in the first paragraph without having to specify the doughnut as Portuguese for a third time. Viriditas (talk) 20:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Background and history

• Margaret and Frank Leonard Rego Sr. opened Leonard's Bakery in 1952 when his mother encouraged him to sell malasadas, a Portuguese doughnut with no hole, a "crispier" outside, and a "chewier" inside.
  • "His mother" reads awfully strange here. I expected to read "Frank's mother" in this context, even though last names are generally preferred. But you are referring to a couple, so I think "Frank" would work here. If you have another way of rewriting it, please do so. Viriditas (talk) 23:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
• Though Portuguese immigrants had brought the dessert to the Hawaiian islands in the turn of the 20th century when they arrived to work in the fields, Leonard's is known for popularizing it.
  • No need for "had". I think "work in the fields" should be changed to "work on the plantations". Viriditas (talk) 23:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
• In 2012, the Honolulu Star-Advertiser reported that the bakery sold over 15,000 malasadas daily, or over 160 million since its opening.
  • I'm not sure why this appears in the middle of the paragraph. Perhaps it should be moved to the end of the paragraph or somewhere else appropriate? Keep in mind a narrative, structured however you want, but logical. Viriditas (talk) 23:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

✓ done czar ⨹ 23:53, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• The plain malasadas are coated with white sugar, but the bakery sells variations garnished with cinnamon or filled with haupia, custard, or chocolate pudding. The bakery sells anthropomorphized malasada stuffed animals and other malasada-related items. The "old-fashioned, plain-Jane bakery"[5] also sells coffee cakes, sweet bread, and pão doce meat wraps.
  • I recommend restructuring this as it reads as if it is backwards. Walk the reader through the bakery, from the general to the particular (by order of importance) starting with:
    • 1. Description: Old-fashioned, plain Jane bakery
    • 2 Primary product: malasadas, variations
    • 3. Secondary product: coffee cakes, sweet bread, and pão doce meat wraps
    • 4. Promotional items: stuffed animals, etc.
  • That's the logical order I expect as a reader. However, for some reason, you've got the following order:
    • 1. Primary product: malasadas, variations
    • 2. Description: Old-fashioned, plain Jane bakery
    • 3. Promotional items: stuffed animals, etc.
    • 4. Secondary product: coffee cakes, sweet bread, and pão doce meat wraps
  • That doesn't make much sense to me. Viriditas (talk) 04:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Another way of looking at it is that the bakery is primarily known for malasadas even before its secondary description as a "plain Jane bakery", so its malasada business is described in detail (its origins, its variations, its promotional items) before mentioning that the bakery also does other/secondary/"plain Jane bakery" stuff. That's the logic. While I appreciate the detailed prose review, I don't think this is going to trip the reader up, though I added some helper words anyway. Everything else should be resolved, if you'll take a look czar ⨹ 08:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I see your point about giving the malasadas a certain primacy over the other subtopics. That's an interesting approach and I think the helper words actually did the job. Good work. Viriditas (talk) 20:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• As of 2011, the bakery is owned by Leonard Rego Jr., where he incorporates his children into the bakery in the same fashion as his parents did to him.
  • I get what you are trying to say, but that's a really clumsy paraphrase. The wording ("incorporates his children into the bakery") makes me think of Hansel and Gretel, and that's not good. :-( Viriditas (talk) 04:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• In December 2008, Rego Jr. opened a franchise location in Japan's Yokohama World Quarter Shopping Center. The location only sells cinnamon and sugar malasadas and beverages, though they expected to add malasadas with fillings to the menu...Rego Jr. intends to open more franchised locations in Japan and on the other islands of Hawaii
  • That source is dated 2009. If there's no update to the expectations of their menu changes within the last six years, then I recommend modifying the wording so that it has more encyclopedic longevity. Saying that they "expected to add malasadas with fillings" to their menu or "Rego Jr. intends to open more franchised locations in Japan and on the other islands of Hawaii'" in 2009 while reading it in 2015 is a form of WP:RECENTISM. That essay has recommendations for how to fix the language for a more balanced and historical perspective. Viriditas (talk) 21:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
    • The current menu shows custard filled[3]. Would this be a valid citation? I can't read Japanese, unfortunately. Brianhe (talk) 21:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Whatever removes the recentism and replaces it with historical, encyclopedic language works for me. What they expected and intended to do in 2009 should be rewritten for longevity. Viriditas (talk) 22:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
        • Edit made to fix recentism. Brianhe (talk) 22:49, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
          • @Brianhe: good work, but you missed the last part: "Rego Jr. intends to open more franchised locations in Japan and on the other islands of Hawaii." That's from 2009. Look at the source again to see if you can reword it for historical longevity or remove it. Viriditas (talk) 03:17, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
            • You're right, I missed it. Seems the best thing to do was to strike the sentence. 6 year old expansion plans aren't really necessary here. — Brianhe (talk) 03:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

External links

• The MSN recipe link is a recipe for malasadas. How is it connected to Leonard's Bakery? The title of that page indicates to me at least that this is a recipe for malasadas in the tradition of Leonard's Bakery. In my eyes, this is a bit spammy. I realize that the GAR doesn't evaluate external links, but one could also conceivably argue that this runs afoul of criterion 2b and 3b. I don't have strong feelings about it, however, the MSN site page does appear to be using a trademarked name to promote a recipe which opens another can of worms. Of course, if it can be demonstrated that Leonard's is connected to this MSN page in an official capacity, then the problem is solved. Viriditas (talk) 03:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)