Talk:Jeff's Gourmet Sausage Factory/GA1

GA Review

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.

---

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

Reviewer: I'ma editor2022 (talk · contribs) 21:56, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Introducing...

Hello! I will be reviewing this Agriculture, Food, and Drink article! Feel free to come by on my user page or talk page if you want to querry something. The process of reviewing this article may take ~7 days more or less. Probably less — Remember, I'murmate — I'ma editor2022 21:56, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Complies with all.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   Some citations, like this one, are archived and dosen't function correctly. When you click on the external link it lead to a archiving website, and shows this. As you can see, the image is problematic for veritability and you can only see the actual page by clicking on "Archived from the original" link. Even so, that source isn't the best that could be used, for example, this one (however their is probably more). I would recommend deleting that source and reuse another. Also, the source wouldn't be a violation of WP:SELFPUB, according to WP:ABOUTSELF because their isn't really a question about veritability. This also applies to a cited tweet found here. This citation here shouldn't be the only source (or be the source) to support that the resturant is glatt kosher as there is only a symbol to support the information. However, the information is presented in numerous other sources. Other than those issues the citations seems to be accurate and ok.

   I had that citation there for his full name but on second thought it's probably not needed, so removed. I don't see an issue with the cited tweet—do you have a problem with it? I've added another source for being glatt kosher, but only their website mentions the certifier so I've left that citation in. JediMasterMacaroni^(Talk) 21:06, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@JediMasterMacaroni:

What I meant about the cited tweet is that it is an example (for other people who might have a concern with it) that is is veritable information, which is why I said "This also applies to...". But, thank you for fixing the problems

Also, thank you for editing the article to conform to the standards! And addresing the problems. —Remember, I'murmate — I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 21:34, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@JediMasterMacaroni

Since you have addresed and fixed the problems I will chnged the status of article to GA status. —Remember, I'murmate — I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 21:42, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

1. C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

3. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

4. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

5. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Compliant on all of them.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Captions are very, very suitable.

6. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I'm going to put it on hold for the reasons above. When I see the issues above have been met and fix , then I'll Pass it. The limit is for seven days, and If I don't see any changes that has been done after 7 days, then it will fail GA status.

7. Updated Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Since you addressed and fixed the problems above, I will pass this for GA status. You're welcome!

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.