Talk:A Book of Mediterranean Food/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 13:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

My birthday appears to have come early. Starting first read-through; more soonest. Tim riley talk 13:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this on, Tim. Hope it's a good birthday. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:18, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments

• This article plainly meets the GA criteria. As a matter of personal preference I'd dearly have liked a good deal more about the content, with perhaps a brief example of one of her chosen dishes from each of the sections, but the article nevertheless meets GA criterion 3, which calls for breadth of coverage, rather than comprehensiveness. (If you spurn my plea I may well sneak onto the edit page, pen in hand, when you aren't looking.)

Go ahead!

• The quotation from ED's preface is a bit squashed in the formatting you've chosen. May I suggest using a quote box instead (as used in the ED biographical article)? Happy to do the honours if you agree.

Done

• In your quote from Clarissa Dickson Wright I'd be inclned to make "and her espousal" into "and [David's] espousal".

Done

• In your para about Rachel Cook's comments, I think you want a comma after "Hopkinson", to open the subordinate clause that you close after "1980s".

Done

• I think your "Editions" box is perfectly brilliant.

Thanks

• Some might suspect a touch of OR about your note on Minton's sailor, but I am applying the telescope firmly to my blind eye as what you say is demonstrably true.

Noted

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Well referenced.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Well referenced.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Well illustrated.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Well illustrated.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I loved this. More, please. – Tim riley talk 14:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Tim. Feel free to proceed with your suggestions as you wish, I'll address the little ones now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:54, 22 May 2015 (UTC)