Talk:Salade niçoise/GA1

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

Reviewer: DarjeelingTea (talk · contribs) 19:10, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

This fabulous article is ready to be promoted to GA status. DarjeelingTea (talk) 20:57, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Overall this is a very good article that was easy to review. There are a few minor, suggested edits, which are listed below.

Well-written ✅ Cullen328  Let's discuss it  20:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC) ✅ Cullen328  Let's discuss it  20:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC) ✅ Cullen328  Let's discuss it  20:12, 27 December 2016 (UTC) ✅ Cullen328  Let's discuss it  20:14, 27 December 2016 (UTC) ✅ I have attributed the report to Mathilde Frénois, a well-known French journalist who often writes for the Paris newspaper Libération. The comments (or insults) she quoted were made on Facebook in response to the recipe that Hélène Darroze posted. Frénois mentions two people by surname, "Marcus" and "Franck" but does not identify them further. I believe that it is better to cite the secondary journalistic coverage of the incident rather than Facebook itself. The cited article includes a link to Hélène Darroze's Facebook page if anyone is interested in reading the full exchange in French.Cullen328  Let's discuss it  20:52, 27 December 2016 (UTC) ✅
 * In the lede, I believe the sentence should read instead of having "for decades" following.
 * Per WP:LEADLENGTH the lede should be 2-3 paragraphs.
 * This sentence - - though correct, is functionally complex. Is it possible to split it into two sentences?
 * Could this sentence - Her version was called "a massacre of the recipe" and a "sacrilege", and a violation of the "ancestral traditions" of the salad. - use a comma in place of the first "and"?
 * Could we specify in this sentence - She was warned that it is "dangerous to innovate". - who warned her (e.g. was it a comment on Facebook, Mathilde Frénois, the Ministère de la culture, etc.)?
 * The references list is very long, could it be split into two or three columns (e.g. with )?

Verifiable / No original research
 * There's no evidence of WP:OR
 * The article is well-sourced to RS with at least one source in each paragraph that can verifiably support the paragraph's contents.

Broad in coverage
 * The article is short, however, that's to be expected given the subject matter (a 125 year-old recipe). It explores the subject in adequate detail without focusing on nuances. (If anything, the list of chefs who have published versions of the recipe - beginning with Nigella Lawson - seems to be a little bit too much detail, but I'll leave that to the editorial judgment of the nominator.)
 * A cursory search I conducted for additional, major themes, failed to find anything that wasn't included.

NPOV
 * The article, not surprisingly given the subject, is NPOV.

Stable
 * Outstanding discussions / disagreements on talk page: none; last substantive discussion was in February 2015 and was a consensus page move
 * Edit history: All substantial edits in the last month have been by the nominator. No signs of edit warring.

Images
 * There are sufficient images of high quality in this article to illustrate the subject.
 * Infobox image is CC licensed as "own work."
 * Second image, by nominator, is CC licensed as "own work."
 * Third image is CC licensed as "own work."

DarjeelingTea (talk) 19:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)