Talk:Dim sum/GA1

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

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 15:23, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I may use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the ✅ tag to state when something is addressed.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs)

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

Immediate Failures

 * It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria -
 * It contains copyright infringements -
 * It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include,, or large numbers of , , or similar tags. (See also ). -
 * It is not stable due to edit warring on the page. -

General
Hi! Thanks for nominating this article. Sadly, I've had a read through, and I don't think I can support this article for promotion. Here's some issues that I picked up that are going to take a bit longer to fix than the normal GAN process. If you get the article passed this, please renominate:

On the plus side, the references look good, aside from "The Passionate Foodie", which is a blog. If you can work on the above, it'll be suitable for another nomination.
 * There's a lot of citations in the lede. A lede is supposed to be a summary of the text within the article, so the information given should be found in the main prose. So, the info in the lede isn't generally cited. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:41, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Cantonese has the wrong link. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:41, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There's quite a few quotations, such as "dim Sum" in the lede, but these aren't actually quotes. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:41, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Paragraph structure is a bit weird, some have small one sentence paragraphs, followed by larger paras. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:41, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * We have a massive quote from Yan-kit So, but we never describe who he is, or why this is important. The quote borders on copyvio in length Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:41, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If we concentrate only on the changes and development in the variety of 'wrappers', the main types of dim sum wrappers during the 1920s included such things as raised (for filled buns), wheat starch, shao mai (i.e., egg dough), crystal bun, crispy batter, sticky rice, and boiled dumpling wrappers. By the 1930s, the varieties of wrappers commonly used by chefs included... puff pastry, Cantonese short pastry, [and so on, for a total of 23 types] that were prepared by pan-frying, deep-frying, steaming, baking, and roasting. - who said this? Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:41, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The main issue here is the big reliance on images. Images should be used to enhance the prose, rather than replace. The dishes section really needs to be prosified Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:41, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not a fan at all of bullet points, you usually need something to be suitable for bullets. The two sections here that use them should be prosified Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:41, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There is still some unreferenced materials. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:41, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Image captions need some work, they mostly just state what the image is of.
 * you also need some alt text. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:41, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

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


 * 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 fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Review meta comments

 * I'll begin the review as soon as I can! If you fancy returning the favour, I have a list of nominations for review at WP:GAN and WP:FAC, respectively. I'd be very grateful if you were to complete one of these if you get time. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski  (talk • contribs) 15:23, 31 October 2020 (UTC)