Talk:Deep frying/GA1

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

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 15:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Starting first read-through. More soonest.  Tim riley  talk    15:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments
I'll put the review on hold for a week to give you time to address these points.  Tim riley  talk    16:42, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Lead
 * "The lead is a bit skimpy. It just about meets the requirement to touch on everything covered in the main text, and I'll pass it for GA, but it would benefit from a little more detail about the most common forms of deep-fried food round the world.
 * History
 * "Greek's" – presumably there was more than one Greek
 * "Romans" – lacks possessive apostrophe
 * "mid 19th" – hyphen needed
 * "especially french fries" – no capital for French?
 * Technique
 * You appear to say, though I don't think you mean, that batter can be made with cornmeal, flour, tempura or breadcrumbs. A stronger stop than a comma is needed; a semicolon would do.
 * "under goes" – one word
 * "dehydrated;" – inexplicable semicolon
 * "under go" – one word
 * "moisture" – why link this?
 * "It has been considered" – by whom?
 * Tools
 * "Deep frying is done using" – I use an aluminium chip pan, not listed here, but widely used, and mentioned in the "Main articles" hatnote to the section.
 * Dishes, foods, and culture
 * In this section we suddenly have hyphens in "deep-fried". This is better English than "deep fried": for example "deep fried fish" logically means fried fish that are deep. Nonetheless, the hyphenation should be consistent throughout the article.
 * "doughnuts" – but they were donuts at earlier mention
 * "Thailand" – WP:OVERLINK
 * "England" – ditto
 * "London" – ditto
 * "Germany" – ditto
 * Hazards
 * "Fires" – another superfluous link
 * "(e.g., baking soda, salt[71])" – citation goes outside the closing bracket (MoS)
 * Effects
 * "be properly disposed" – should this have an "of"?
 * "to negatively impact health" – does that mean to damage health?
 * Duplicate links:
 * tempura
 * fish and chips
 * acrylamide


 * Tim riley, I wanted to let you know that Winner 42, who nominated the article, has retired. Since some retirements don't last long, and people are urging a return on Winner 42's talk page (one even detailed how to circumvent the wikibreak enforcer that Winner 42 set up), I think it makes sense to hold the review open for the full week. There's also the possibility that someone else might come along and work on addressing the issues you've raised. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


 * By all means. And thank you very much for letting me know.  Tim riley  talk    23:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

After a further week: I'll leave the review open for another seven days before closing it.  Tim riley  talk    16:21, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll go review and address the issues above. Esquivalience t 14:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That is most kind of you. I'll await the outcome of your efforts. Kind regards,  Tim riley  talk    14:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I have addressed most of the problems above with the exception of the short lead and done some rewording; I'll address the lead later. Esquivalience t 15:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia should be grateful to for coming so effectively to the rescue of this GA candidacy. It would be nice if the lead could be expanded, but as I have said above, it just about suffices as it is for GA, and my other minor points have been attended to. I am very pleased to promote this article.

Overall summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria Thanks to all concerned! A pleasure to review.  Tim riley  talk    23:28, 17 September 2015 (UTC) (note from BlueMoonset (talk): Overall summary posted here at 19:29, 27 September 2015‎ (UTC), though timestamp appears to be from ten days earlier)
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail: