Talk:Hodad's/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Bungle (talk · contribs) 18:38, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I'll take this on.. may be a few days for a full review, but i'll try and get some initial thoughts sooner. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:38, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Review

Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. 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):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Lead

• Where exactly is "downtown"? Is it downtown San Diego, downtown ocean beach or is there an area "downtown"? Just seems a bit vague and confusing (especially for the casual reader)
  • Done
• Maybe describe what "Food Network" is (that it's a tv channel)
  • Done
• Lead seems very short (even taking into the account the modestly sized article)

History

• "..where they sold their 'Amazing Burgers'" - perhaps it needs to be clear this is entirely bias marketing jargon (although not as crude as that). I think if you are including this claim, it needs to be very clear that is the restaurant's own view (it doesn't seem to have been described that way in reviews, for instance)
  • Removed the burger reference
• For the aforementioned claim, the ref just points to the home page, when perhaps it needs to point to this page?
  • Done
• The explaination of where its name derives from it quoted in numerous sources that are easily verifiable; the source used is a book, with questionable page number(s) and on a foreign google site. Whilst linking here would be better (the same book), I think you could also reference one of the numerous websites as well (i.e. Collins Dictionary site has the definition)
  • Done
• "..who took over the management in the 1980s." - is there a more specific date than 1980s? Also, this notes he assumed management at that time, but was he made a co-owner then too? Was he any part of the business prior to this?
• "Following Mike's sudden death.." - the sentence starts as if we already know he died rather than actually saying he did; maybe reword this accordingly
  • Done
• "The open-air restaurant moved three times.." - are we still referring to the original one on Ocean Beach that was founded in '69? Why did it move 3 times and was it around the same time or various points since the initial formation?
  • Removed sentence
• "..to its current location, also on the beach." - so did it move along the beach? Is it still in the same locality? A little confused. Also as before, the ref just goes to the homepage, which doesn't by itself in any way collaborate what is written
  • Removed sentence
• I think there can be expansion on the additional locations (e.g. have they been well received by customers)
• Whilst I get the impression Mike Hardin was quite a popular figure, I don't see why almost half the history prose of the actual business needs to detail his death. Do we really need to say there was "no evidence of foul play" and information about the coroner's report? What does the manner of his death have to do with the article's purpose (which is about a restaurant chain)? Yes it can be mentioned, but condensed and perhaps a short paragraph, not a separate section
  • Cut down content on Mike Hardin that isn't related to business operations
• Overall, the history section is very slim for a business that has been going nearly half a century! I am sure you can find more information as currently I don't know if the "broad in coverage" aspect of GA is being met
  • I've added some additional details, including some more information about the earlier years. From what I've gathered, a lot of the significance came after Byron's death, hence there not being as many sources from earlier. I'm looking for some additional details, such as menu items and the like.

Menu

• "(Fieri's nickname is Guido.)" - maybe this should go after "inspired by Guy Fieri", as it refers to his better known name and perhaps reword to "better known as" and maybe why that's the case
  • Done
• How has the menu changed since its inception in 1969? What did they sell then and is it broadly the same or has it changed with the times? What is popular?

Reception

• "When reached by San Diego Reader writer Mercy Baron" - "Reader writer"? Is he a writer for "San Diego Reader" or a Reader-writer (whatever they may be) for San Diego? I think the former, but wasn't too clear when reading it the first time! Maybe a sub-section title for "Controversy" should be used to set it apart from the desirable media coverage in the first paragraph
  • Done

Images

I think you could easily add images here. When I go in flickr and search with an appropriate license that commons would accept, there are a fair few that would compliment the article.

• Done (I even used my own in fact!)

References

• I have made a few in-line reference comments above, but I do not like the fact the google books are using foreign google sites (i.e. arabic, when this has no bearing on the business).

The links I posted are to google.co.uk (my local google) but I am sure you can find the comparable ones within google.com

• • Done
• Also as noted above, the references should be specific to what the inline prose is saying, and not simply going to a home page or otherwise that doesn't explicitly collaborate the content
  • Done

Conclusion

I think it's quite short and could do with being expanded, particularly for a business that has been going nearly 50 years. There are several book sources used and I am sure some of these, or others, could delve further into the history. It doesn't really give me a good understanding of this business, other than they sell burgers since 1969 on a beach. As an outsider, I am none the wiser if this is a very small-time, localised family-run business or if it has any national attention/famous in further reaching regions.

I am happy to hold this, but my primary concerns right now is on the referencing and more particularly, broad in coverage and would need expanding, especially on history, if it's to be a good article. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

@RobBertholf: I see you have made a significant number of changes.. almost an entire rewrite of the article. It may be necessary for me to undertake another whole review rather than simply addressing the specific aspects I noted previously. When you feel you have finished this undertaking, can you let me know so I can then proceed to review? Thanks. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:50, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Of course. After doing all that I figured it may need to be the case. ATM I am pretty much just going to be writing the lead and tweaking the prose so that everything flows better. @Rob talk 02:34, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey, I'll be working on the article tomorrow to get everything improved and tightened up. Sorry about the delays! @Rob talk 18:19, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

@RobBertholf: No worries, just let me know when you are done. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

@Bungle: All done! Thank you for your patience. @Rob talk 15:57, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@RobBertholf: I'll aim to do the next review in the next few days. I'm really pleased to see you have expanded it noticeably and it's, from a glance, looking more befitting. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:54, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Review #2

I have started to look through the article since it has undergone it's rewrite. I will post my initial observations now but I have yet to work through the rest of the article, however you may want to see if you can make further improvements whilst I do that. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Lead

• "Its name comes from.." - this seems a little oddly placed, if indeed necessary to be in the lead at all. It goes into slightly more detail than it does in the main prose.. this should be the other way around, but i'd question lead inclusion
• "It was started.." - anything better than "started"? Maybe founded?
• Maybe substitute "mom" for "mother" so it's more broadly general
• Voltaire St - don't abbreviate "Street", especially before a full stop
• I think the lead may benefit from a copyedit. Be careful not to give more detail in the lead than in the prose.. it should be brief, condensed and more thoroughly explained in the prose
  • I feel all issues have been addressed. @Rob talk 20:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

History

• As with the lead, the sentence about the meaning of "Hodad" seems oddly placed. The sentence starts "The name" without following on from specifically the name "Hodad's".
• A few sentences starting "In 19xx" - doesn't seem to flow that well. Some sentences could be restructured so as to not start in the same manner, but still include references to the date period they refer to
• "In 1973, they purchased a burger stand in Ocean Beach, San Diego for $600" - use inflation template for the $600
• 10th and Broadway - 10th what? It may make sense to someone from the area, maybe even someone from the states, but Wikipedia is not an American Wikipedia.. "10th" alone means nothing to me. Also, "Broadway" might be good to wikilink to an article (the DAB page has numerous ones it may be associated with)
• ..is called "Hodad's Too" - "was approximately twice the size" - "is" called but "was" twice the size? Confusing mixture of tenses. I assume it was twice the size when it originally opened? Is it the same size now, or did it have an extension?
• As with the lead, I feel a copyedit would be beneficial

Management

• Why does it start from 1984? The sentence could be restructured so as that it's clear Mike's parents managed it together until 1984 until his father's death, then bring Mike into it.
• "His mother passed away in 1989" - this doesn't need a standalone sentence
• ..also known as the “unofficial mayor of Ocean Beach” - the ref notes this phrase, but I don't see anything to explain why this is the case? I assume it's relatively informally meant, but it doesn't explain if that's a wider consensus of general opinion
• "A makeshift memorial was created.." - was this created after his death, because he died, or was it pre-existing?
• "It shut down February 6 and 7 in honor of his death as well as another employee who had passed away in a car crash, and was reopened on February 9" - I don't really get this sentence?

Menu

• "At the original beach location, Hodad's served burgers for 25 cents" - What time period was this and why is it significant? If it's quite some time ago, you may be able to use the inflation template to demonstrate how much that would be today.
• "Burger prices range from $4.25 to $8.25" - is this the contemporary pricing? It comes immediately after the previous sentence about 25c pricing at the original location, so it may refer to 2 entirely different time periods? Needs to be clear.
• "..and the business' profits tripled" - from what, to what? It's hard to understand the significance unless we know the monetary value being discussed
• "One of Hodad's signature ingredients.." - whose wording is this?
• "These are made by boiling pounds.." - is this relevant?
• "Serious Eats writer Erin Jackson.." - do we need this sentence? Is Erin Jackson's opinion significant enough for mention in a wikipedia article?

Decor

• "Hodad's walls have a number of license plates and stickers are found at both Newport Avenue and 10th Avenue locations." - not sure this is coherent. I think it needs rewording.
• "It also has loud music playing." - this is placed within a "decor" section, so the decor has loud music? As above, doesn't really make sense with its current placement.
• "everything in the Ocean Beach and 10th Avenue locations is provided by customers" - ref says it's just Ocean Beach location.
  • Dealt with these. @Rob talk 06:37, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Reception

• "has received generally positive reception" - not particularly good grammar here - do we need to say "generally" or can we just say "has received a positive reception" if the sources collaborate that?
• "The episode was played often due to the writer's strike" - so if it's excessive play was due to factors entirely unrelated to the business itself, why mention it?
• "By 1991 under Mike Hardin, the restaurant's revenue had tripled" - why is this in reception section? Would it not be better suited in history?
• "..making approximately 4,000 burgers daily", "sells between 1,200 and 1,500 hamburgers daily" - as above.. why in reception section?
• "..said it was one of San Diego's 'most famous restaurants.'" - the ref doesn't collaborate this statement. Even if it did, i'd feel it is perhaps a bit too opinionated for a wikipedia article
• "holds a cult following among both tourists and locals" - the ref doesn't exactly say this, instead that some tourists feel they must visit when travelling; perhaps rephrase so it's more in keeping with what is verifiable and merge with following sentence as we don't need two short sentences about the same point
• I have some reservations about portions of the second paragraph - parts of it could be perceived to be just too self-promotional, particularly where direct quotes taken from individuals giving an opinion are presented in such a way as if to portray the burger chain in that manner. I think there is just a bit too much, and would advise removing the parts where quotations are used (e.g. the last sentence including "every best burger list begins with Hodad’s.")
• Maybe give it another read through and consider how much of it is wholly suitable for a wikipedia article; I would also question the inclusion of "However, he called their milkshakes "damn good."" at the very end

Controversy

• I have been thinking about whether to mention this, though on balance I wonder if this case needs to be included. When I have written about controversy regarding a business, I tend to limit the content to cases that can be proven beyond doubt with a known end result (i.e. company admits liability, company is taken to court and fined, company apologies and clarifies improvements to be made). In the single case mentioned, the version of events was disputed and by the article's own reckoning, the media even struggled to ascertain a certain version of events. I'd say on balance, it's not credible enough for encyclopedic mention (but that doesn't detract from the validity of any complaint that the man in question held). I'd suggest removing.

Images

Can't go wrong taking your own photos and releasing them under an appropriate license!

References

• Is obrag.org a reliable source? It's not the norm for articles, especially those designated GA, to be referenced from blogs, and this site identifies itself as a blog. There is a fair bit of prose that references this and I am just a bit concerned about the general reliability. I suspect, given the information is there, it would be easier to find better ref(s) to back that info up.
  • Looking back, obrag.org seems to be a followup to a physical newspaper that dates back to the 70's, which was published by Frank Gormlie who also did the articles cited. Not sure if that helps make a difference. @Rob talk 07:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Is this explained somewhere in the reference? If it can be demonstrated that it's essentially a journalist interview from a historical period then it may be ok, but if that's the case, the information may be repeated somewhere more mainstream? Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:13, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I looked around, but I did not see another source that discussed this. I will keep looking however! @Rob talk 22:53, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

More to follow. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay.. been mega busy these last few days. Will have the rest done asap! Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:13, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

No problem! You have been so patient with me, it'd be rude for me not to impart that same kindness. @Rob talk 22:53, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Conclusion

@RobBertholf: I have more or less completed the secondary review of the article, following your extensive rewrite. My time has been so restrained, but I have tried to offer feedback in parts so you have had a chance to consider, or work through, portions of my raised concerns without needing to wait for a single full review to be posted. The list of concerns is quite comprehensive, though many are simple tweaks, rewords or content removals, so it may be that they can be worked through moderately swiftly. As it's been ongoing for some time already, and I posted my initial feedback over a week ago, I feel a week from now easily suffices for most, if not all, of the amendments to be made. Feel free to question or disagree with any of my points, and we can consider together if it's worth pursuing. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

@Bungle: I believe I have addressed all concerns. The only thing I did not do was moving data on sales, as I feel that this data reflects the commercial success and this how well it was received by people. @Rob talk 03:24, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

If you can find more info on previous years financial success, you could create a new section that would be more fitting for the information. At the very least, we need to understand the figures being discussed (as I note in my micro-review below).

Final thoughts

• Lead: "corner of 10th" - think I mentioned this before, needs to be clearer for non-American
• History: "$3237 adjusted for inflation" - should be an "as of YEAR"
• Management: "..It shut down February 6 and 7" - shop or memorial?
• Menu: "Hodad's served burgers for 25 cents ($1 adjusted for inflation)" - maybe be clear the time period being discussed
• Menu: "The beef patties are made using freshly delivered beef" - need not be mentioned
• Reception: "On the Jay Leno Show, Fieri was asked to name the number one burger in the country and named Hodad's" - leaning too much towards over-promotional
• Reception: "By 1991 under Mike Hardin, the restaurant's revenue had tripled" - I mentioned this previously, as we still don't know what the figures are before/after
• Reception: "In 2011, the restaurant was making approximately 4,000 burgers daily" - this just doesn't seem right in this section, as it's more to do with staff/management efficiency than public perception/reception etc
• Reception section is still just not right.. too much excess promotional, indulgent and bias viewpoints. It really needs to be factual and/or neutral. For instance:
  • In an article by Hoodline, Hodad's burgers ranked number 3 out of 50 for quality burgers under $10 - this is fine
  • The Standard's Jono Pech said that Hodad's was a highlight of his trip to the United States - this is not fine

@RobBertholf: There are a few things that still niggle me, as above. You really need to take another look at that reception section, as it just doesn't strike me as being wholly appropriate for a wikipedia article. A person's own viewpoint or opinion does not constitute an encylopedic fact, which the information must be. Quotes from individuals can sometimes be accepted, depending on the context, but not in this type of article and the way they are used. Otherwise, it's pretty close now. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:02, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

@Bungle: I cleaned up everything stated a bit, but I feel that parts of the reception section are just fine. I feel that even specific things like "The Los Angeles Times writer Christopher Reynolds praised Hodad's food and style." for instance is an acceptable thing, in my opinion, to include. It is not a factual assessment, but I think that a ranking is pretty much the same thing as talking about why you like a product. - @Rob talk 23:36, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I went through and changed everything to be more neutral while still keeping the sources. - @Rob talk 23:54, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

@RobBertholf: I see you didn't need the extra time I gave you to get the changes done :) I'll give it a final read over later today and hopefully conclude this. I can make any minor changes myself if need be. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:16, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I have gone through and undertaken a copyedit, fixing some grammar errors and removing information I expected to be trimmed from my previous comments. We may agree to disagree on some points, though personal opinions of individuals are really just that, and I don't feel alone can justify being noted. The reception section is still fairly extensive though, and it's important to have the 2nd paragraph of contrasting views to ensure it meets the neutral point of view aspect. I just want to query the following though:

• In 2011, the restaurant was making approximately 4,000 burgers daily. As of 2015, the restaurant estimated that it sells between 1,200 and 1,500 hamburgers daily.

This confused me. Is "making" and "selling" used in the same context, or are they making 1000s of more burgers a day that remain unsold? Maybe it's that they have reduced their output in 2015 from 2011, but this needs to be clearer. Otherwise, I think we can then look to give this GA as it's been well over a month (for which I take some of that on my back!), but at least you got a very thorough review, plus it's undergone an extensive rewrite! Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:45, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

All right, thank you! Made the fix. Sorry for it taking as long as it did, and I appreciate you helping out as much as you did and for your patience. @Rob talk 23:16, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

GA status

@RobBertholf: I am prepared now to issue the article with GA status, following the previous extensive rewrite and resolution to the issues raised. You may notice I made further changes yesterday, particularly to referencing as a final cleanup. Some things i'd like to make note of (i.e. observations throughout this review):

• It may have been suitable for me to have failed the article initially, as alot of work was still needed to improve it, and you may be able to take alot from that for any future articles you nominate for GA (I suspect many may have quick failed it, justly)
• Try to step outside your own perspective and consider whether what you're writing, and subsequently reading, is entirely neutral (I refer specifically to aspects of the reception section, which I ultimately had to further trim myself). NPOV is a GA criteria, and it would have been wrong to pass the article feeling that this was not met
• Try and avoid excessive detail that has no significance on the article itself (such as going into detail about Mike Hardin's death, when the article is about a restaurant he managed, not necessarily about him)
• Strive to maintain consistency in your writing and formatting. For instance, there are several types of reference "accessdate" formats used throughout the article, and settling on one type is better; perhaps you can go through and change this at some point

I don't know whether at some point you'd be seeking to improve it to FA standard, though if you are, it'd still need further copy-editing and expansion on the history element of the article in particular. There are lots of references used in this article, and a rather low ratio of content compared to the ref quantity, so I suspect it wouldn't be difficult to find suitable information for the future. Other than that, it's taken a little longer than I initially thought, and considerably more lengthy than even the upper-limit I had set myself, but it's done now! Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)