Jump to content

Talk:Dinner by Heston Blumenthal/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Albacore (talk · contribs) 19:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC) Review:[reply]

  • Particular dishes have been heralded as stand outs, "heralded" and "stand outs" are close to peacock terms, a reword would be nice.
  • Consider linking "mousse" on first appearance.
  • The opening was originally planned for 1 December, but delays occurred requiring it to be pushed back until after the Christmas period was over 1. Could you elaborate on "delays"? 2. A comma after occurred is needed. 3. it->> the opening
  • Changed the structure as suggested. Once I've done with the copyedits I'll go have a look through the sources to see if there is anything more specific, although I think it was simply because the restaurant wasn't finished. Miyagawa (talk) 18:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • two chefs researched the historical menu second the is not needed
  • She also wrote that Hix had remarked remove "had"
  • Richard Vines whilst writing for Bloomberg advised Bloomberg is a DAB, and a comma could be used after Vines and after Bloomberg
  • reason behind recreating the salamagundy dish. Salmagundi? Is salamagundy an alternate?

Overall the article has peacock terms, which leads to puffery, the main concern with the article.

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):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  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:
  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:

I'll look over the article again when these comments are addressed. Albacore (talk) 19:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message on my talk page, I hadn't realised a review had begun. I'm about to log off wiki for the night, so I'll address these points and make the relevant edits when I'm back on tomorrow evening. Thanks for the review! Miyagawa (talk) 22:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through and edited the description and menu sections for peacock terms and did a bit of copyediting whilst I was at it. I couldn't find anything specific on the nature of the delay itself, but I did manage to find something a little bit extra on the timings and so I've added that to the article. Let me know if theres anything else you need to do, I'll stick this page on my watchlist. Miyagawa (talk) 18:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reread, and looks good. Only niggling concern is The British Library; should it be as is, The British Library, or British Library, since the former redirects to the latter? Albacore (talk) 21:52, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason I got it into my head that the article was "The British Library". So I've changed the link to just "British Library" and de-linked the "the" (and removed the capital too). Miyagawa (talk) 13:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Passed. Albacore (talk) 14:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.