Talk:Grapico/GA1

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

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Lead was improved. Again, this is just a great article and really deserves to be put up for FA. --Patrick (talk) 17:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 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:


 * In my opinion this article is drenched in original research. The amount of work done to compile the research is admirable, but it belongs somewhere else where it can be reviewed before it passes muster as "verifiable" on Wikipedia. The court cases, trademark applications and incorporation papers establish certain facts, but they don't necessarily paint the picture that the author is giving us here (for example; whether establishing an advertising account or being taxed indicates a particular measure of success). The significance of the details about Grossman's Sons previous business ventures and the proximity of Rochell's offices to the Buffalo Rock plant are unexplained and, like the bunches of grapes on the first bottles, imply the presence of an ingredient --interpretation-- that isn't really here. Furthermore the level of detail presented for things that can be found on the internet (filings and court cases, for example) undoubtedly distorts the picture by leaving out so much that is not so easily uncovered. Again, what we are missing is the treatment that would be given to this research by a historian publishing in a professionally-reviewed medium. My advice would be to pull back on the excess detail, as befits a general-interest encyclopedia, and to look for more secondary sources. --Dystopos (talk) 21:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)