GA Review[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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

Reviewer: Jappalang (talk) 06:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    Although I marked this pass, there are still some niggles that need to be resolved below.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Lots of issues, see below.
  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):
    See below.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    On hold: final judgment depends on resolution of the issues pointed out.
    No work was even started within 7 days. Jappalang (talk) 03:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Item 1 issues:

Item 2 issues:

Several unsourced statements:

Furthermore, certain sources have issues as follow:

The formatting for the items in the Bibliography seem to be inconsistent; why the "taken from", instead of listing publishers and such?

Item 6 issues:

As such, I withhold judgment for the moment. Jappalang (talk) 06:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the last GA for this article, and I had fairly serious remarks about 2 (focus) and 4 (neutrality). Some of these have not been addressed properly since the last nomination. Anyone who wants to read the details should check out Talk:Korean cuisine/GA1. In this review they are passed by without any comments. Does this mean that the previous review is irrelevant as long as the (rather technical) quibbles of this review are fixed?
Peter Isotalo 19:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to the instructions given, yes. GAN is a single reviewer process—one person makes the decisions (pass, fail, hold, or to ask for another opinion). The restriction is that no one can interfere with someone else's decision to hold. If anyone disagrees with the decision of a reviewer, he or she is free to bring the article concerned to WP:GAR, where it then becomes a community decision. As far as I can tell, that is how the GA process is run: a one person rule, different from FAC's reliance on a pool of supports and a delegate's decision.
My assessment of this article follows the guidelines for GA (WP:WIAGA). On regards to the first review's issues with focus and neutrality, I do not see it with the criteria in mind. Most of what is raised there relates to the history presented in this article and I agree with the editor's view that history of a nation plays a part in its cuisine. The GA criteria calls for a broad coverage, which I take to mean without going into too much detail as well (just enough to satisfy most readers). I view the first review's concern as wanting that level of detail, which I think is more appropriate for FA-level and GAs are "articles considered to be of good standard but which are not featured article quality."
Regardless, it seems that no one is picking up the baton to improve this article and the 7-day limit (without a single edit in that time) is about to be up in about 5 hours time. Jappalang (talk) 01:21, 7 September 2010 (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.