Talk:Gibanica/GA1

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

Reviewer: Sven Manguard (talk · contribs) 05:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I apologize, but I am going to have to fail this nomination. At this time, there is simply too much content that needs to be added at this time. Feel free to resubmit once you feel that the issues below have been addressed.

So what I recommend is that before you go any further, you take a look at the articles Falafel, Fluffernutter, Frog cake, Stargazy pie, and Hyderabadi haleem. These are all articles on prepared foods and are all GA level.

There are several sections that this article does not have that it either must or should have. I believe that it must have a true history section, like the one in Fluffernutter or Frog cake. I also believe that the section currently titled "Origins" needs to be retitled "Etymology", and then expanded. It doesn't have to be as large as the one in Falafel, but it's too small now. I applaud the inclusion of a section on variants, however the description of how the dish is made is far too sparse, and needs expanding. Finally, I think that it needs a cultural impact section, as is seen in Fluffernutter, Stargazy pie, and Hyderabadi haleem.

As for things that I think would definitely benefit the article, but are not exactly 'must haves', I would consider adding a nutrition section. Both Falafel and Hyderabadi haleem have one, with the section in Falafel being the better of the two.

In addition, there are several content changes that need mentioning:

- "gibanica" should remain in italics in the Origins/Etymology section, but should not be italicized in the lead or the other sections. - The "Old Serbian proverb" doesn't belong where it is. It might be worth mentioning in a cultural impact section, but outside of such a section it is not appropriate for inclusion. - Once you have a larger article to work with, File:PrekmurskaGibanica1.JPG and/or File:Međimurska gibanica (Croatia).jpg should be added in. I actually thing that the first of the two of those images is (assuming that it is a normal example of this dish) a better image of the dish.

Thank you for putting all of this work into the article. I hope that you take my recommendations in consideration, and are able to bring this back to GAN one day.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  05:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for review. I will do my best to make this article again GAN according to your instructions. Greetings and best wishes. (Nightwolf87 (talk) 09:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC))