Talk:Bacon Explosion/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Seabuckthorn (talk · contribs) 05:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Nominator: ChrisGualtieri (talk)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have my full review up shortly. -- Seabuckthorn   ♥  05:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

1: Well-written
 * a. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * b. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

Check for WP:LEAD:


 * 1) Check for Correct Structure of Lead Section:  ✅
 * 2) Check for Citations (WP:LEADCITE):  ✅
 * 3) Check for Introductory text:  ✅
 * 4) * Lead should provide an accessible overview with Relative emphasis. The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the body.
 * 5) * Check for Provide an accessible overview (MOS:INTRO): ✅
 * 6) ** Major Point 1: History and origin "It caused an Internet sensation … meal ideas in the world." (not a concise summary of the History and origin section, points like The Daily Telegraph quote can be moved to the body and summarized in the lead)
 * 7) ** Major Point 2: Preparation "" (not in the lead)
 * 8) ** Major Point 3: Recognition "The Bacon Explosion's creators … won at the 2013 Blue Ribbon Bacon Festival." (not a concise summary of the Recognition section)
 * 9) * Check for Relative emphasis: ✅
 * 10) ** Major Point 1: History and origin "It caused an Internet sensation … meal ideas in the world." (the lead gives due weight as is given in the body)
 * 11) ** Major Point 2: Preparation "" (not in the lead, the lead does not give due weight as is given in the body)
 * 12) ** Major Point 3: Recognition "The Bacon Explosion's creators … won at the 2013 Blue Ribbon Bacon Festival." (the lead gives due weight as is given in the body)
 * 13) * Check for Opening paragraph (MOS:BEGIN): ✅
 * 14) ** Check for First sentence (WP:LEADSENTENCE): ✅
 * 15) *** A bacon explosion is a pork dish that consists of bacon wrapped around a filling of spiced sausage and crumbled bacon.
 * 16) *** Definition and notability should be in the first sentence (WP:BETTER). As per WP:LEADSENTENCE, The article should begin with a short declarative sentence, answering two questions for the nonspecialist reader: "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable?".
 * 17) ** I think "most popular" is notability and should be incorporated in some form in the first sentence.
 * 18) ** Check for Format of the first sentence (MOS:BOLDTITLE): ✅
 * 19) ** Check for Proper names and titles: ✅
 * 20) ** Check for Abbreviations and synonyms (MOS:BOLDSYN): None
 * 21) ** Check for Foreign language (MOS:FORLANG): None
 * 22) ** Check for Pronunciation: None
 * 23) ** Check for Contextual links (MOS:CONTEXTLINK): ✅
 * 24) ** Check for Biographies: NA
 * 25) ** Check for Organisms: NA
 * 26) Check for Biographies of living persons:  NA
 * 27) Check for Alternative names (MOS:LEADALT):  ✅
 * 28) * Check for Non-English titles:
 * 29) * Check for Usage in first sentence:
 * 30) * Check for Separate section usage:
 * 31) Check for Length (WP:LEADLENGTH):  ✅
 * 32) Check for Clutter (WP:LEADCLUTTER):  None

✅

Check for WP:LAYOUT: ✅


 * 1) Check for Body sections: WP:BODY, MOS:BODY.  ✅
 * 2) * Check for Headings and sections: ✅
 * 3) ** Use a different heading for section History and origin. This section hardly has anything before December 2008 so the History is not appropriate. I recommend Origin.
 * 4) ** Use a different heading for section Recognition. This section refers to "obesity" aspect also. I’d recommend a more neutral Reception.
 * 5) * Check for Section templates and summary style: ✅
 * 6) * Check for Paragraphs (MOS:PARAGRAPHS): ✅
 * 7) ** Paragraphs should be short enough to be readable, but long enough to develop an idea. (WP:BETTER)
 * 8) ** Fix short paragraphs in the Preparation section.
 * 9) Check for Standard appendices and footers (MOS:APPENDIX):  ✅
 * 10) * Check for Order of sections (WP:ORDER): ✅
 * 11) * Check for Works or publications: ✅
 * 12) * Check for See also section (MOS:SEEALSO): ✅
 * 13) * Check for Notes and references (WP:FNNR): ✅
 * 14) * Check for Further reading (WP:FURTHER): None
 * 15) * Check for External links (WP:LAYOUTEL): ✅
 * 16) * Check for Links to sister projects: ✅
 * 17) * Check for Navigation templates: ✅
 * 18) Check for Formatting:  ✅
 * 19) * Check for Images (WP:LAYIM): ✅
 * 20) * Check for Links: ✅
 * 21) * Check for Horizontal rule (WP:LINE): ✅

✅

Check for WP:WTW: ✅


 * 1) Check for Words that may introduce bias:  ✅
 * 2) * Check for Puffery (WP:PEA): ✅
 * 3) * Check for Contentious labels (WP:LABEL): ✅
 * 4) * Check for Unsupported attributions (WP:WEASEL): ✅
 * 5) * Check for Expressions of doubt (WP:ALLEGED): ✅
 * 6) * Check for Editorializing (MOS:OPED): ✅
 * 7) * Check for Synonyms for said (WP:SAY): ✅
 * 8) ** Fix "The Daily Telegraph noted that the … " in the lead. What follows is the interpretation, so a verb like "assessed" or "opined".
 * 9) ** Fix "… while another noted that it … " in the Recognition. What follows is the interpretation, so a verb like "assessed" or "opined".
 * 10) Check for Expressions that lack precision:  ✅
 * 11) * Check for Euphemisms (WP:EUPHEMISM): ✅
 * 12) * Check for Clichés and idioms (WP:IDIOM): ✅
 * 13) * Check for Relative time references (WP:REALTIME): ✅
 * 14) * Check for Neologisms (WP:PEA): None
 * 15) Check for Offensive material (WP:F***):  ✅

Check for WP:MOSFICT: (NA)


 * 1) Check for Real-world perspective (WP:Real world):  ✅
 * 2) * Check for Primary and secondary information (WP:PASI): ✅
 * 3) * Check for Contextual presentation (MOS:PLOT): ✅

None


 * Prose is preferred over list (WP:PROSE):
 * Check for Tables (MOS:TABLES):

2: Verifiable with no original research
 * a. Has an appropriate reference section: Yes
 * b. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: excellent (Thorough check on Google. Cross-checked with other GA)

✅

Check for WP:RS: ✅

Cross-checked with other GA: Baconnaise


 * 1) Check for the material (WP:RSVETTING):  (not contentious) ✅
 * 2) * Is it contentious?: No
 * 3) * Does the ref indeed support the material?:
 * 4) Check for the author (WP:RSVETTING):  ✅
 * 5) * Who is the author?:
 * 6) ** Darlin, Damon (The New York Times)
 * 7) ** Singh, Anita (The Daily Telegraph)
 * 8) ** Day, Jason (BBQ Addicts)
 * 9) ** Taylor, Greg (Stay Cut)
 * 10) ** (Express)
 * 11) ** van der Plas, Caroline (Meat & Meal)
 * 12) ** Abouhalkah, Yael T. (The Kansas City Star)
 * 13) ** Nista, Monica; Cox, Lauren (ABC News)
 * 14) ** Bandyk, Matthew (U.S. News & World Report)
 * 15) ** (Eat Me Daily)
 * 16) ** Chronister, Aaron (BBQ Addicts)
 * 17) ** Day, Jason (BBQ Addicts)
 * 18) ** Bender, Jonathan (Eat Like a Man)
 * 19) ** (Blue Ribbon Bacon Festival)
 * 20) * Does the author have a Wikipedia article?:
 * 21) * What are the author's academic credentials and professional experience?:
 * 22) * What else has the author published?:
 * 23) * Is the author, or this work, cited in other reliable sources? In academic works?:
 * 24) Check for the publication (WP:RSVETTING):  ✅
 * 25) * The New York Times
 * 26) * The Daily Telegraph
 * 27) * BBQ Addicts
 * 28) * Stay Cut
 * 29) * Express
 * 30) * Meat & Meal
 * 31) * The Kansas City Star
 * 32) * ABC News
 * 33) * U.S. News & World Report
 * 34) * Eat Me Daily
 * 35) * BBQ Addicts
 * 36) * BBQ Addicts
 * 37) * Eat Like a Man
 * 38) * Blue Ribbon Bacon Festival
 * 39) Check for Self-published sources (WP:SPS):

✅

Check for inline citations WP:MINREF: ✅


 * 1) Check for Direct quotations:  ✅


 * 1) * "recipe is most popular on the web" and that the "5,000 calorie barbeque dish has become one of the most popular meal ideas in the world."[2] (Random check on source 2, successful, "Bacon Explosion recipe is most popular on the web The Bacon Explosion - a recipe for a 5,000 calorie barbeque dish - has become one of the most popular meal ideas in the world after being posted in a blog.")
 * 2) * "They came up with the delicacy after being challenged on Twitter to create the ultimate bacon recipe."[2]
 * 3) * "Why Americans are fat" … .[7][8]
 * 4) * "landed a six-figure book deal"… .[10]
 * 5) Check for Likely to be challenged:  ✅
 * 6) Check for Contentious material about living persons (WP:BLP):  NA


 * c. No original research: ✅

✅


 * 1) Check for primary sources (WP:PRIMARY):  ✅
 * 2) Check for synthesis (WP:SYN):  ✅
 * 3) Check for original images (WP:OI):  ✅

3: Broad in its coverage

✅

(Thorough check on Google in parallel with criteria 2. Cross-checked with other GA: Baconnaise)


 * 1) Check for Article scope as defined by reliable sources:
 * 2) Check for The extent of the subject matter in these RS:
 * 3) Check for Out of scope:
 * 4) Check for The range of material that belongs in the article:
 * 5) Check for All material that is notable is covered:
 * 6) Check for All material that is referenced is covered:
 * 7) Check for All material that a reader would be likely to agree matches the specified scope is covered:
 * 8) Check for The most general scope that summarises essentially all knowledge:
 * 9) Check for Stay on topic and no wandering off-topic (WP:OFFTOPIC):

✅


 * 1) Check for Readability issues (WP:LENGTH):
 * 2) Check for Article size (WP:TOO LONG!):

4: Neutral

✅

4. Fair representation without bias: ✅


 * 1) Check for POV (WP:YESPOV):  ✅
 * 2) Check for naming (WP:POVNAMING):  ✅
 * 3) Check for structure (WP:STRUCTURE):  ✅
 * 4) Check for Due and undue weight (WP:DUE):  ✅
 * 5) Check for Balancing aspects (WP:BALASPS):  ✅
 * 6) Check for Giving "equal validity" (WP:VALID):  ✅
 * 7) Check for Balance (WP:YESPOV):  ✅
 * 8) Check for Impartial tone (WP:IMPARTIAL):  ✅
 * 9) Check for Describing aesthetic opinions (WP:SUBJECTIVE):  ✅
 * 10) Check for Words to watch (WP:YESPOV):  ✅
 * 11) Check for Attributing and specifying biased statements (WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV):  ✅
 * 12) Check for Fringe theories and pseudoscience (WP:PSCI):  None
 * 13) Check for Religion (WP:RNPOV):  None

5: Stable: No edit wars, etc: Yes

6: Images ✅ (Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license) & (Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license)

✅

6: Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: ✅


 * 1) Check for copyright tags (WP:TAGS):  ✅
 * 2) * Image 1 (Bacon Explosion.jpg): This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license. This version permits free use, including commercial use.
 * 3) * Image 2 (Bacon Explosion preperation 01.JPG): This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. This version permits free use, including commercial use.
 * 4) * Image 3 (Bacon Explosion preperation 02.JPG): This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. This version permits free use, including commercial use.
 * 5) * Image 4 (Bacon Explosion preperation 03.JPG): This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. This version permits free use, including commercial use.
 * 6) * Image 5 (Bacon Explosion finished.JPG): This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. This version permits free use, including commercial use.
 * 7) Check for copyright status:  ✅
 * 8) * Image 1 (Bacon Explosion.jpg): Free.
 * 9) * Image 2 (Bacon Explosion preperation 01.JPG): Free.
 * 10) * Image 3 (Bacon Explosion preperation 02.JPG): Free.
 * 11) * Image 4 (Bacon Explosion preperation 03.JPG): Free.
 * 12) * Image 5 (Bacon Explosion finished.JPG): Free.
 * 13) Check for non-free content (WP:NFC):  None
 * 14) Check for valid fair use rationales (WP:FUR):  NA

6: Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: ✅


 * 1) Check for image relevance (WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE):  ✅
 * 2) * Image 1 (Bacon Explosion.jpg): Relevant.
 * 3) * Image 2 (Bacon Explosion preperation 01.JPG): Relevant.
 * 4) * Image 3 (Bacon Explosion preperation 02.JPG): Relevant.
 * 5) * Image 4 (Bacon Explosion preperation 03.JPG): Relevant.
 * 6) * Image 5 (Bacon Explosion finished.JPG): Relevant.
 * 7) Check for Images for the lead (WP:LEADIMAGE):  ✅
 * 8) * Image 1 (Bacon Explosion.jpg): Appropriate & Representative
 * 9) Check for suitable captions (WP:CAPTION):  ✅
 * 10) * Caption 1: "A complete bacon explosion dish" succinct and informative
 * 11) * Caption 2: "The woven bacon base" succinct and informative
 * 12) * Caption 3: "The bacon explosion meat sauced and ready for rolling" succinct and informative
 * 13) * Caption 4: "The bacon explosion rolled and seasoned prior to cooking" succinct and informative
 * 14) * Caption 5: "The bacon explosion served by candlelight" succinct and informative

As per the above checklist, the issues identified are :
 * The lead needs to be rewritten. Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the body.
 * Fix layout and WTW.
 * Is this link " http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/features/can-bacon-be-part-of-a-healthy-diet " relevant to the article scope?

This article is a very promising GA nominee. I’m glad to see your work here. All the best, -- Seabuckthorn   ♥  09:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello! To address part of the second bullet (WTW), I changed the two instances of "noted" to "assessed" and "asserted," respectively. (Megatron Omega (talk) 06:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC))
 * I worked on the lead and hopefully resolved the issue by covering the preparation and focusing more less on the details of the awards. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Good. --  Seabuckthorn   ♥  17:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, everything looks good now. Passing the article to GA status. -- Seabuckthorn   ♥  17:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)