Contents

Talk:Deep frying/GA1

Article promoted by User:Tim riley on 27 September 2015.

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

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 15:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Starting first read-through. More soonest. Tim riley talk 15:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Lead
  • "The lead is a bit skimpy. It just about meets the requirement to touch on everything covered in the main text, and I'll pass it for GA, but it would benefit from a little more detail about the most common forms of deep-fried food round the world.
• History
  • "Greek's" – presumably there was more than one Greek
  • "Romans" – lacks possessive apostrophe
  • "mid 19th" – hyphen needed
  • "especially french fries" – no capital for French?
• Technique
  • You appear to say, though I don't think you mean, that batter can be made with cornmeal, flour, tempura or breadcrumbs. A stronger stop than a comma is needed; a semicolon would do.
  • "under goes" – one word
  • "dehydrated;" – inexplicable semicolon
  • "under go" – one word
  • "moisture" – why link this?
  • "It has been considered" – by whom?
• Tools
  • "Deep frying is done using" – I use an aluminium chip pan, not listed here, but widely used, and mentioned in the "Main articles" hatnote to the section.
• Dishes, foods, and culture
  • In this section we suddenly have hyphens in "deep-fried". This is better English than "deep fried": for example "deep fried fish" logically means fried fish that are deep. Nonetheless, the hyphenation should be consistent throughout the article.
  • "doughnuts" – but they were donuts at earlier mention
  • "Thailand" – WP:OVERLINK
  • "England" – ditto
  • "London" – ditto
  • "Germany" – ditto
• Hazards
  • "Fires" – another superfluous link
  • "(e.g., baking soda, salt[71])" – citation goes outside the closing bracket (MoS)
• Effects
  • "be properly disposed" – should this have an "of"?
  • "to negatively impact health" – does that mean to damage health?
• Duplicate links:
  • tempura
  • fish and chips
  • acrylamide

I'll put the review on hold for a week to give you time to address these points. Tim riley talk 16:42, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tim riley, I wanted to let you know that Winner 42, who nominated the article, has retired. Since some retirements don't last long, and people are urging a return on Winner 42's talk page (one even detailed how to circumvent the wikibreak enforcer that Winner 42 set up), I think it makes sense to hold the review open for the full week. There's also the possibility that someone else might come along and work on addressing the issues you've raised. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By all means. And thank you very much for letting me know. Tim riley talk 23:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After a further week: I'll leave the review open for another seven days before closing it. Tim riley talk 16:21, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim riley: I'll go review and address the issues above. Esquivalience ^t 14:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is most kind of you. I'll await the outcome of your efforts. Kind regards, Tim riley talk 14:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim riley: I have addressed most of the problems above with the exception of the short lead and done some rewording; I'll address the lead later. Esquivalience ^t 15:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia should be grateful to @Esquivalience: for coming so effectively to the rescue of this GA candidacy. It would be nice if the lead could be expanded, but as I have said above, it just about suffices as it is for GA, and my other minor points have been attended to. I am very pleased to promote this article.

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?

   Noedit 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:

Thanks to all concerned! A pleasure to review. Tim riley talk 23:28, 17 September 2015 (UTC) (note from BlueMoonset (talk): Overall summary posted here at 19:29, 27 September 2015‎ (UTC), though timestamp appears to be from ten days earlier)[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.