Talk:Freedom fries/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 19:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

• Hi, I'll do this one. FunkMonk (talk) 19:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
• The article is on the short side, I'm sure there must be enough info to beef it up further. As a start, the external link articles could be integrated into the article, instead of just being appendixes. Even the Wikinews article is half as long, so it's not that there isn't enough info out there. The article seems like a mere summary as is. If it isn't expanded, I can't see why the entire article couldn't just be merged into french fries as a section.
  • I've searched for more, but for what I've seen most articles have around the same info; like you said, the wikinews article is only half as long as this article. As it is now, even though it's short it goes full circle and is well detailed. And I don't believe this article should be merged as it was an influential political event in its own right; the only thing I could consider merging this with is Minuteman Salsa and Roses of the Prophet Muhammad under a Political euphemisms of food article.

Well, again, simple Google searches reveal there is a lot more that could be incorporated. And lack of access to papers and books shouldn't be an excuse: If the literature isn't available, then one should wait and find it before writing the article in the first lace. FunkMonk (talk) 13:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• There needs to be a background section for context. As it is, the background is given in the intro, but the intro should merely be a summary of the entire article, it should not have info not found elsewhere in the article.
  • Can you please elaborate more, I believe the lead accurately summarizes the article, and isn't necessarily all background.

I'm not complaining about the lead, but the fact that there is info on the baclground in the lead that s not mentioned in the article. There should be no info in the intro that is not also in the article body, so you could make a section about background to solve this problem, as well as making the article longer. FunkMonk (talk) 12:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• "the term became irrelevant", I think "obsolete" or some such might be a more appropriate word.
  • I'm going to have to disagree here because the term really just fell out of popularity, but wasn't necessarily killed.
• All of the popular culture section could be incorporated into the reactions section in prose form, and the least notable entries cut out.
  • I believe the way it is right now is best, as now it shows reactions from conservative and liberal sources. And if the popular culture were to be added to it, since most of them were against the change, the reactions 'against' would be much greater than those 'for,' adding undue weight.

Then it is merely a trivia section, and such are not considered good style on Wikipedia. FunkMonk (talk) 13:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• A search on Google scholar[1] and Google books[2] shows that there is a lot of literature you have overlooked, which should be incorporated. You have only used news articles, it seems.
  • The reason for that is because I don't have direct access to published works and all works cited are reliable. Many of the pieces here are case studies, would you like them incorporated as well? If so I'll see what I can do.

Access shouldn't be a problem, this usually works for me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request FunkMonk (talk) 12:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, first of all thanks for taking up this review, and second, sorry I haven't done anything yet, I must've overlooked the review with Addbot mass editing all the articles. I'm busy IRL right now, but I'll hop on this with the next couple of days. Thanks again, Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 04:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again for doing this, I'll keep adding to the article and taking your suggestions. Sorry that I've taken so long, I'm going through midterms right now, so I hope you can understand. Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 04:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not the kind of guy who closes a GAN after a week[3], so take your time. FunkMonk (talk) 13:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

After some research the majority of books and publications you linked to me are more about boycotts and the psychology behind patriotism and not about the actual freedom fries episode. I've incorporated books and more sources into the article, and I feel although the article is still comparatively short, it does the subject justice and really goes full circle. If you've read of more info about this event that could be added I'd really appreciate it cause I can't find any more. Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 01:54, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• Alright, just to be sure, I'll ask about a second opinion on the comprehensiveness issue. FunkMonk (talk) 06:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• Second opinion - I see several issues. First, I'd like to see the subheadings in the Reaction section removed. They chop up the text and doesn't look good. See Template:Condense. Also, the background info about the name change is in the lede, but not in the actual Background section. The Background section needs to include information about the Iraq War, France's opposition, and reactions to France's opposition.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:17, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Nice to see you under less heated circumstances. What do you think about length and use of sources, is it acceptable? FunkMonk (talk) 15:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

:) Yeah, it's nice to take a break from the Syria articles. Anyways, WiseGeek and IMDB are not reliable sources, per [4] and [5]. I'm also uncomfortable with the amount of primary sources used in the article.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comments and concerns, I'll be sure to fix and address them all soon. Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 17:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• Second second opinion - I'm not sure if outside opinion is still being looked for here on comprehensiveness (it's still marked as such, which brought me in), but here's one anyway: FWIW, unless there are specific concerns that a specific main aspect isn't being covered, I don't see the brevity as a problem. The criteria explicitly allow short articles, and even allows articles that leave out "major facts or details", so this appears to easily meet the standard. (In fact, for minor topics like this, I think the brevity is more of a virtue than a problem.)

My suggestion for moving forward would be to attempt to articulate the "main aspects" that are missing, rather than look at total percentage of possible sources included, overall length, etc. Just my two cents, though; if it's not helpful, feel free to disregard. Thanks to everybody involved for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I've added more background info and revised the lede, does anyone think I've missed something or like to add more? Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 06:07, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

• It's much better with the background section now (which was my main problem, Khazar2), perhaps there might be some more info on the thoughts of the guy who made up the term? Any interviews or such? FunkMonk (talk) 02:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• Done: I've added more info on the names creator and his motivation behind it from an interview. Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 03:44, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

That's very nice for context. I'm ready to pass, but might there be any more thoughts from the second opinion reviewers? FunkMonk (talk) 03:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Hold on - The two unreliable sources I mentioned have not been addressed. IMDB is not a reliable source. It's better to just cite the episode of the American Dad. Again, WiseGEEK is not realibe source. Either replace the source, or remove the statement supported by the source.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Good call. FunkMonk (talk) 15:26, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 20:52, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• I think it looks much better now with the expansion, and thanks for the second opinions. Passed. FunkMonk (talk) 15:05, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: