Talk:Jean Anthelme Brillat-Savarin/GA2

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

Reviewer: Tim O'Doherty (talk · contribs) 14:58, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

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

GA nomination was withdrawn after some disagreement over style during the first review. I'll look over the article closely soon after publishing this page, but making the first mark in the ground to let Tim know I've seen the withdrawal and renomination. Feel free to ask about any of my comments either here or on my talk page. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 14:58, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):
 * After a quick buzz through the article, I make the following recommendations (but will not insist upon anything, and none are deal-breakers).
 * (in English, The Physiology of Taste) -> (The Physiology of Taste): I think that "in English" is probably not needed here, given that we're on en.wikipedia.org, but if this is what the MoS suggests, and I've missed it, keep as is.
 * You're right. A bit belt-and-braces: deleted.  Tim riley  talk   14:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Ancien Régime -> Ancien Régime: should this be italicised? I think not; we wouldn't italicise Fifth Republic, par exemple.
 * I see our WP article doesn't, and nor, now I check, does the OED. Certainly should be in romic, I think.  Tim riley  talk   14:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * (c. 1900 photograph) -> (c. 1900 photograph): MOS:CIRCA
 * I'm a bit at sea technically on this. Might I prevail on you to do the honours?
 * When the king summoned the Estates General -> When the King summoned the Estates General: MOS:JOBTITLES: "When a title is used to refer to a specific person as a substitute for their name during their time in office, e.g., the Queen, not the queen (referring to Elizabeth II); the Pope, not the pope (referring to Francis)."
 * I grow increasingly certain that if one attempts to grapple with the italicisation of job titles one will inevitably go mad, but I have done as you suggest, to stave off madness for now.  Tim riley  talk   14:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Brillat-Savarin remained for nearly two years in the US -> Brillat-Savarin remained in the US for nearly two years: I don't have a MoS justification for this, I just thought the construction was a bit odd.
 * I don't feel strongly about this, but have changed to your version, which seems fine to me.  Tim riley  talk   14:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I would de-italicise magnus opus and italicise "savarin"; the former because Masterpiece only italicises chef-d'œuvre, and the latter because I believe it to be a case of WP:WORDSASWORDS.
 * Both those points are over my head, or above my pay grade, or whatever the current cliché may be. I've happily done as you suggest, without being quite sure why.  Tim riley  talk   14:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That's all I've really got for now. Feel free to do all of them, none of them, or anywhere in between. More to come soon. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 15:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That's all I've really got for now. Feel free to do all of them, none of them, or anywhere in between. More to come soon. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 15:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

(Criteria marked are unassessed)
 * b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * No egregious weasel or peacock terms, the article is laid out well, etc. In the Later years section, could you remove the link to French Wikipedia after L'Académie des Gastronomes, as the article doesn't exist? [Done - What can I have been thinking of?  Tim riley  talk   14:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC)]
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a. (reference section):
 * The references are formatted correctly. A little later I'll do a spotcheck making sure the references verify the text.
 * b. (citations to reliable sources):
 * Sources look reliable. As I said, I'll do a manual spotcheck soon enough.
 * c. (OR):
 * d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * Earwig gives 9.9%, mostly quotations and titles.
 * 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:
 * The article, as written, is neutral, but I'll be checking some of the sources to make sure there isn't anything big about his life being left out. Done. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 15:33, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * A lot of recent changes, but that's to be expected when prepping a GA nominee. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 13:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 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):
 * All images have appropriate tags
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Captions are good, as is the alternate text for each image.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * A pleasure working with you again, Tim. Hopefully the review was up to snuff. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 15:37, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * A lot of recent changes, but that's to be expected when prepping a GA nominee. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 13:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 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):
 * All images have appropriate tags
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Captions are good, as is the alternate text for each image.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * A pleasure working with you again, Tim. Hopefully the review was up to snuff. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 15:37, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * A pleasure working with you again, Tim. Hopefully the review was up to snuff. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 15:37, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * A pleasure working with you again, Tim. Hopefully the review was up to snuff. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 15:37, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Source spotcheck
Given that it would be a bit cumbersome to drop all of this into the main structure of the review, for ease of both writing and reading, I'll do it here instead. I've picked out a variety of different sources, and checked to see if they verify the article text or not. The following have been accessed via the Internet Archive.


 * 1) 1 - Symbol_support_vote.svg
 * 2) 5 - Symbol_support_vote.svg
 * 3) 10 - Symbol_support_vote.svg
 * 4) 15a - Symbol_support_vote.svg
 * 5) 20 - Symbol_support_vote.svg
 * 6) 25 - Symbol_support_vote.svg
 * 7) 30 - Symbol_support_vote.svg
 * 8) 35a - Symbol_support_vote.svg
 * 9) 40 - Symbol_support_vote.svg
 * 10) 45 - Symbol_support_vote.svg
 * 11) 50 - Symbol_support_vote.svg
 * 12) 55 - Symbol_support_vote.svg
 * 13) 60 - Symbol_support_vote.svg
 * 14) 65 - Symbol_support_vote.svg - I couldn't find it, but maybe it was just because of the edition I was using. I'll trust you here.