Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Clementine cake/1

Clementine cake

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Clementine_cake/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • Most recent review
 * Result: Kept. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:40, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I noticed it from the recent AFD, where I also mentioned that it needs a reassessment. The article is surprisingly so brief for a GA. It has just 3 sections, the last 2 (History and In Popular Culture) are tiny. I understand that for an article of a cake, this one's above the average quality, sure, but I'm not sure that it merits a GA status. Speaking on technical terms, it fails criteria 3: "Broad in its coverage" - for the reasons mentioned above. NB: It was assessed 8 years ago X (talk) 08:17, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * During the process of creating and expanding the article, I pretty much used up all of the reliable sources that were available online at that time (e.g. from Google Books, Google News, Highbeam, etc.) Personally, I don't view the article or its sections as short or "tiny". For a cake article, it is very comprehensive as well as informative, relative to the actual sources available for the topic. Regarding the In popular culture (IPC) section, extensive listings are actually discouraged. There's even a template for overly long IPC sections in articles: In popular culture. See also: Manual of Style/Trivia sections and Handling trivia. North America1000 05:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC) (Article creator)
 * I think over the years -- and especially during the recent AfD, when there were multiple edits including additions from now-available sources -- the narrative flow has suffered. And the images could be improved. But the coverage isn't incomplete, it's all cited and verifiable, other than the recent AfD and those edits it's stable, it's neutral. Agree with NA1000 that we don't actually want any pop culture section to be longer than is strictly needed. And that applies to the article in general -- broad coverage doesn't require a certain length. I'm not sure this is a fail, it's just a GA that needs to tending to. Valereee (talk) 11:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I've improved the images and narrative flow. Valereee (talk) 11:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)