Talk:Pancake/GA1

GA Review

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

Hello, Puffin, I will be reviewing this good article nomination over the next couple days. I will probably make some minor copyedits and fixes in the meantime as I go over the article. When I am finished with my review, I will place it here, so you may want to place this page on your watchlist so that you can see my review when it appears. Good luck! Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Review as of 20:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, so I've taken a look at this article, and it needs a lot of work to reach GA status. I'm considering quick-failing on sourcing issues alone. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Lead

• It appears somewhat OK, although a good copyedit is definitely in order.

Etymology

• One sentence is not enough to make its own section. Please expand or merge.

Regional varieties

• Please clean up the sections so they aren't armies of one-sentence paragraphs.
• Also, remove the bolding.
• Almost totally unreferenced. You will need to provide reliable sources to back up all the claims made.

Pancake restaurant chains

• This also needs reliable sources.
• This should probably discuss pancake restaurant chains, not just list a couple.

Pancake Day

• Large portions, including the whole second paragraph, are unreferenced.

See also

• This looks good.

References

• (#2) What makes these reliable sources: 2, 10, 11, 14, 15, 20, and 24?
• Most of the references need to be cleaned up with additional information like publisher, accessdate, page number, etc. added.

Further reading

• Please format the book mention to match whatever format you use for the refs.

External links

• Looks good.

Doesn't it cover the subject appropriately? Aren't the images fine? Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 21:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The images are fine, and no, it doesn't appear to cover the subject appropriately. Most of the information is unsourced, and thus it does not even meet the criteria for a B-class article. You will probably want to read WP:WIAGA and take into account my comments here before resubmitting. If you want me to give it another look over after you've cleaned up all the issues and before you resubmit it for GA nomination, I'd be happy to help. However, in its current state, the article is not even close to GA standards. As such, I have to fail the nomination. I'm sorry. Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

---

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Final check

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:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   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?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: