Content deleted Content added
m Transcluding GA review |
No edit summary |
||
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
|archive = Talk:Everything Tastes Better with Bacon/Archive %(counter)d |
|archive = Talk:Everything Tastes Better with Bacon/Archive %(counter)d |
||
}} |
}} |
||
{{GA|23:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)|topic=Language and Literature|page=1}} |
|||
{{GA nominee|18:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)|nominator='''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]])|page=1|subtopic=Literature|status=onreview|note=}} |
|||
{{talkheader}} |
{{talkheader}} |
||
{{WikiProjectBanners|1= |
{{WikiProjectBanners|1= |
Revision as of 23:15, 8 January 2010
Everything Tastes Better with Bacon has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: January 8, 2010. |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Everything Tastes Better with Bacon article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA Review
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Everything Tastes Better with Bacon/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Hadger 03:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
This article is very great! It is a very good article! --Hadger 23:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose): b (MoS):
- I think that the second paragraph in the lead section should be merged into the reception section, because it does tell the reader about the reception. Other than that, the article really follows the Manual of Style.
- a (prose): b (MoS):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- I put a question mark for the part that says it contains reliable sources because I'm not sure if it counts to just name the page number. However, I think this is probably okay, but I'm not sure. I guess the sources are okay, but adding links would be great! (I don't think you really have to, just a suggestion.)
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It is good because it contains the things about the book that should be mentioned, and it is also good because it doesn't get off-topic and doesn't explain completely different things, but instead just explains information related to the book.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- It follows the neutral point of view policy because it doesn't contain opinions, but instead contains facts about opinions, and it doesn't contain the words to avoid.
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- I looked at the history and didn't see any edit wars or any other type of conflict that would somehow harm the the article, which I know you can tell is a good thing.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- I understand that it wouldn't be appropriate to add many images since they would probably be non-free, so I am marking this part as neutral.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
Thank you very much! Cirt (talk) 23:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)