Talk:Bagel toast

Review of "Bagel Toast" article:

1. Unbiased: The article is unbiased - although I'm not sure how you could be biased on bagel sandwiches!

2. References: Good use of references. You found references from credible sources (i.e., Yale Press). This is a great foundation. Maybe from here you could add other online sources such as a food website.

3. Notable/Important: Bagel sandwiches doesn't seem like the most important topic in the grand scheme of things, but at the same time, you chose this from the "articles needed" page. I think the topic could have added importance if you were able to add some historical elements about bagel toast or tie it more into the culture. Is there a reason behind why bagel toast (or bagels for that matter) have a hole in the middle? I'm thinking along the lines of the shape of a pretzel and how there's a history behind that. Any kind of cultural or historical tidbits like that could make the article more notable.

4. Complete/Concise: I think you mentioned that you had a hard time finding information about bagel toast, so maybe your article is complete. Per the above, however, it might be interesting to add more information if more is available. Your article is concise.

5. Visua: I think some people in class had problems adding images to their pages, but if you could add an image, that would be great!

6. Linked: Your article contains numerous outbound links to other pages based on certain words being hyperlinked. I think that Wikipedia added these automatically (?)

7. Clearly Written: Your article is clearly written. Good job, English teacher! :)

This article is unbiased, notable, and is referenced, fulfilling the wikipedia basic requirements. It is well written, concise, and seemingly complete. It could probably benefit from a visual aid such as a photograph, and possibly links to recipes (which may include their photographs).Nsoltanzadeh (talk) 00:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)