Talk:Maxwell House Haggadah/GA1

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

Reviewer: TonyBallioni (talk · contribs) 18:06, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria I'm not too familiar with Judaism as a religion, but its within North America and I expect I have the level of background where I could do a GA level review. I'll work on this over the next week.
 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * Haggadah of choice for President Barack Obama's this might go under neutrality, but its often just better to keep it simple and say something like Barak Obama used... if it was the only one he used.
 * as were one million copies of the revised, gender-neutral translation in 2011 I don't think its necessary to explain that the 2011 revision was gender neutral here. You already say it elsewhere in the article, and there isn't a reason to expect that it would have caused a decline in use. It also might be worth cutting the 2006 number for the sake of concision.
 * fond tradition I could go either way on fond (concision and neutrality issues). I'll raise it here for you to consider.
 * a former high school teacher of English just say High school English teacher that's the most common way of phrasing it in American English, which would be the correct style for this article.
 * The inside layout underwent additional graphics changes every decade on average is awkwardly constructed IMO, not sure if there is a better way to get the ideas across.
 * Then as now, the Haggadah presents only a bit of an overly formal tone here in my opinion. Its simpler to just remove then as now and more concise.
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * It was reportedly used in underground Seders reportedly is a word to watch here, and the source states it as a fact. Is there a reason we shouldn't believe it?
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * This is actually the biggest potential red flag I see because it switches between using the templates and using shortend footnotes/Harvard style referencing. In my own articles I like to keep it consistent, and I haven't seen other GAs that combine the two. I'll ping on this for their opinions. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:39, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a common approach where many cites to a small number of key sources coexist with a bunch of singleton cites to scattered sources.  E Eng  17:14, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I hadn't seen it before. So wanted a second opinion on consistency. Passing on this point. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:17, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Man, you write in sentence fragments and call yourself a GA reviewer? What's this world coming to?  E Eng  17:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm looking for a witty response and coming up short. Hang head in shame. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * Good to go on this.
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * I was able to verify all the content that was available to me/not behind a pay wall.
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * Only things that are coming up meet our policy for use of non-free text in regards to quotes.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * Good here.
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * Clear and focused
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * Seems neutral. I'm assuming the source here calls it a cultural icon, which is why the phrase is used.
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * No edit wars
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * Tagged with PD status with justifications
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * , good work on this. One of the better GA nominations I have read through, and I really enjoyed reading it. The fixes are pretty simple to make, and the question about the citation style is for now just a questions that I wanted to get other editor's feedback on before passing this. Like I said, very good job. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:39, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * thank you very much for your review and complimentary remarks. I made all the fixes you mentioned under well written. The Hallmark card is quoted as calling it a cultural icon, but I used a link instead of quote marks the first time I mention that term. Regarding the referencing, I generally put only the book sources into shortened footnotes, but I could do the same with the newspaper sources if you prefer. Please let me know. Yoninah (talk) 21:52, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No, its fine now. Its just a stylistic preference on my part. All the changes look good. This is a pass. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:23, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Yoninah (talk) 22:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Yoninah (talk) 22:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC)