Talk:Danish cuisine/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 02:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: found and fixed three.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 02:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Linkrot: found three, fixed two and tagged one.[2] Jezhotwells (talk) 02:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

A full review will be posted within 48 hours. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The article as it stands is not reasonablt well written. Some examples below:

   Over the centuries, sausage, which was not only economical but could be kept for long periods, was together with rye bread behind the development of smorrebrød. implies that the suasage developed smorrebrød

   Pålæg (meaning put-on, actually "that which is laid on [the bread]"), the topping, then among others can refer to commercial or homemade cold cuts, pieces of meat or fish, cheese or spreads. Makes no sense at all.

   due to the pressures of the modern life "the modern life"

   Tartar, with salt and pepper, Should be "Syeak tartare"

   There will also be cold cuts such as hams, roast beef, salami, brisket of beef and spiced roulade. incorrect introduction of future tense

   Fish, seafood and meat are prominent parts of any traditional Danish dish. All of the fish mentioned here is seafood.

   Ris á l'amande is described in basically identical terms four times

   Other popular foods This section is basically lifted from this source.

   Overall, the tone is not encyclopaedic, much use of phrases such as For the average family;

   I found another copvio section lifted from this source

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   ref #37[3] is a dead link, needs fixing.

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:

   'Another reasonable place to eat is at a café.; represents an unattribute point of view.

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:

   Due to copyright concerns, which affect a large part of the article, I am now failing this nomination. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Both of those copyvios aren't. The first is that according to its "about this book" chapter "uses some material from public domain such as Wikipedia". The other is simply a pdf of an early version of this article. Neither do much to comply with the license terms but that doesn't make this article a copyvio. 95.166.78.149 (talk) 18:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC}

Wow. Good spot. I did have suspicions. What does this mean then? Does the information still need to be removed? (The first source references information being used from Wikipedia and other free sources here.) Peter (talk) 23:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)