Wikipedia:Peer review/Beecher's Handmade Cheese/archive1

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get it to Featured Article status. It became a GA on about this version which I've expanded a lot. I know the lead needs re-expanding but I've held off until I finish up the body. I have probably another 10-15 or so sources right now I'm pending to go through. How does it look? What does it need (a good copyedit aside)?

Thanks, rootology (C)(T) 16:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • I'd cut "renowned", that seems a bit encyclopaedic. You could say "prize-winning" as an alternative, but I think it is best to let the facts speak for themselves.
  • Expand the lead a bit to summarise all the article, presently "Pure Food Kids" isn't mentioned and "Milk supplies" could probably be given another sentence.
  • "metallic in appearance" is an odd way to describe a factory.
  • "it was noted" - either attribute the statement directly or state it as a fact.
  • "Also, unlike most artisan cheeses" - "However" would read better than "also"
  • "cheese makers by hand constantly separate the cheese" - reword perhaps "cheese makers constantly separate the cheese by hand"
  • "The pH balance and levels" - pH is a measurement that is a property of a particular substance, this can't be "balanced" since it is a single value - like you wouldn't say a person had a "height balance", also levels of what? This isn't at all clear.
  • "the remaining excess moisture is forced from the cheese .... before being stored to age" - needs to be reworded, as phrased it says the moisture is stored to age.
  • "their mixture of cheese growth cultures in unusual ways" - unclear and ungrammatical
  • "cafe in their facility, for the public" - saying "for the public" seems redundant.
  • "was featured on The Martha Stewart Show, and Dammeier.." - Could add a bit more zing, may be "was featured on The Martha Stewart Show while the ex-con presenter looked on Dammeier..." :) Or maybe not?

Overall, a great article. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, Tim. I've gone through and fixed everything at this point, or User:Jmabel did on a copyedit pass he did/peer review on the article talk. This can be archived... I'm going to try to FAC it tonight. rootology (C)(T) 02:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]