Talk:Bazzini/GA1

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

Reviewer: Amitchell125 (talk · contribs) 15:37, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

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

(Criteria marked are unassessed)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):
 * b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a. (reference section):
 * b. (citations to reliable sources):
 * c. (OR):
 * d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a. (major aspects):
 * b. (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a. (major aspects):
 * b. (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * Pass/fail:

Happy to review this article. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:37, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Lead section

 * The lead section needs to be expanded to better summarize the article (e.g. add more on the Bazzini Building).
 * Coming back to this at the end.
 * Added to it now. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 02:23, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Unlink New York (MOS:OL).
 * Not yet done in the text. AM
 * ? New York isn't linked in the lead. It was linked in the caption, which I removed. Do you mean New York City? Assuming that's what you mean, I removed it. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 21:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * ? New York isn't linked in the lead. It was linked in the caption, which I removed. Do you mean New York City? Assuming that's what you mean, I removed it. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 21:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)


 * There is no need to cite the text in the lead section, as it is not controversial.
 * Not yet done. AM
 * ✅ missed one. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 21:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ missed one. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 21:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I would refer to Antonio Bazzini as a composer, not a violinist.
 * Link Greenwich Street; Allentown (Allentown, Pennsylvania).
 * Did first. Allentown already linked in the first sentence.
 * Adding: I removed "Bazzini Brothers" as the quality of the sources where I see that name aren't good enough. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 21:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Adding: I removed "Bazzini Brothers" as the quality of the sources where I see that name aren't good enough. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 21:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

History

 * The link to Washington Market does not lead to where you expect it to (the lead links Tribeca separately, which is what I would do).
 * Not sure I understand. It leads to where we cover Washington Market, mentioned there in boldtext. I suppose it would be consistent to change the link in the lead to also point to that section?
 * Yes, you need to be consistent. AM


 * started the company in 1886 – the company’s name should be included here in full, as the main text of the article is separate from the lead section.
 * moved up to The Bronx - ‘moved up to the Bronx’.
 * they relocated – ‘the company relocated’ sounds clearer imo.
 * Introduce Jimmy Carter.
 * ✅ reworded
 * Link food wholesalers (Wholesale marketing of food); ton (you need to be specific about which kind of ton is being referred to); Virginia; North Carolina; Georgia; blanched (Blanching (cooking)); Manhattan; condominium; candy; Allentown, Pennsylvania.
 * oil or dry-roasted - ‘oil- or dry-roasted’.
 * Who is Rocco Damato?
 * There's not much information about him that I could find apart from him being the guy who bought Bazzini and became its CEO. Added the CEO bit. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 22:30, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * In 2011, it acquired – the text could be made clearer by specifying what it is referring to here.
 * ✅ assuming you mean replacing "it" with "Bazzini" &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 22:30, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * (FDA) - can be omitted, as the abbreviation is not used later in the article.
 * up to code – consider replacing this with something less informal.
 * changed to "meet the new regulations" &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 22:30, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * As of 2017, it is the oldest nut company in the United States. - this seems strange right at the end of the section, I would put it at the very start.
 * ? Doesn't a history section typically go chronologically? I tried moving it around, but it always seemed odd to mix the historical information with something about 2017 (i.e. putting the last part of its history at the beginning of the history section). IMO its presence in the lead means we shouldn't worry about putting at at the top of this section? &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 22:30, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I can see what you mean, I think the issue was probably that this last paragraph of the History section has information that isn't really historical, it's more a description of the current company. Suggestion (not GA, so please ignore me if you wish): consider preceding the History section with another one ('Organisation'?) that includes what the company sells, where it's currently based, the CEO, and its trademark. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:19, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * up to code – consider replacing this with something less informal.
 * changed to "meet the new regulations" &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 22:30, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * As of 2017, it is the oldest nut company in the United States. - this seems strange right at the end of the section, I would put it at the very start.
 * ? Doesn't a history section typically go chronologically? I tried moving it around, but it always seemed odd to mix the historical information with something about 2017 (i.e. putting the last part of its history at the beginning of the history section). IMO its presence in the lead means we shouldn't worry about putting at at the top of this section? &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 22:30, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I can see what you mean, I think the issue was probably that this last paragraph of the History section has information that isn't really historical, it's more a description of the current company. Suggestion (not GA, so please ignore me if you wish): consider preceding the History section with another one ('Organisation'?) that includes what the company sells, where it's currently based, the CEO, and its trademark. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:19, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I can see what you mean, I think the issue was probably that this last paragraph of the History section has information that isn't really historical, it's more a description of the current company. Suggestion (not GA, so please ignore me if you wish): consider preceding the History section with another one ('Organisation'?) that includes what the company sells, where it's currently based, the CEO, and its trademark. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:19, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Bazzini Building

 * Link estate (Estate (law)); lots (Land lot).
 * Bazzini Building should not be in bold here (see MOS:NOBOLD).
 * Bazzini Building points to this section. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 22:34, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * ❌ OK, but the term first occurs in the lead section, so that's where it should be written in bold, not here (see MOS:BOLD). Amitchell125 (talk) 06:01, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * ❌ OK, but the term first occurs in the lead section, so that's where it should be written in bold, not here (see MOS:BOLD). Amitchell125 (talk) 06:01, 29 April 2023 (UTC)


 * in Renaissance – ‘in the Renaissance’ sounds better imo.
 * A large number of businesses… - this long sentence makes little sense at present, splitting it into separate ones would help, I think.
 * The sentence in question is "A large number of businesses, mostly food wholesalers, operated out of the building in the first half of the 20th century." Could you say more about how that would be split? &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 22:34, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No, my bad! AM
 * No, my bad! AM

Other comments

 * There’s almost nothing in the article about fruit or chocolate products, or indeed any of the different products sold under the brand name of Bazzini.
 * The tough thing is searching for this kind of information. There are a lot of ads and false positives to sift through. I found a few sources which list them in the most basic, generalized way, so have added those. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk \\ 02:09, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The official website is not mentioned.
 * There is nothing about any of the company's advertising campaigns.
 * Did you see anything about them? I don't think I have apart from a mention of the elephant. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 02:09, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I thought I saw stuff before, but now can't, so ignore me. AM
 * I thought I saw stuff before, but now can't, so ignore me. AM


 * Consider including an infobox using.
 * The Bazzini logo could be uploaded for this article (I’m happy to do this for you).
 * Not GA, but I would add the WikiProject Brands on the talk page.
 * Not GA, but I would add the WikiProject Brands on the talk page.

On hold
I'm putting the article on hold for a week until 28 April to allow time for the issues raised to be addressed. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 19:09, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, I think I've gone through all of the above. I've done most of the suggested changes, but there are a couple responses for you to consider. Thanks. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 02:23, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Passing now
One minor issue yet to be unresolved, so the article has passed. Congratulations! Amitchell125 (talk) 06:24, 29 April 2023 (UTC)