Talk:The BLT Cookbook/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Hadger 21:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't really find any problems. The lead is okay, because it includes things that are in the main body of the article. I only found one grammar error, but I fixed it since it was easy to fix. I think it would be better to review the article section-by-section instead of using a template. I will also include what an article should be and if the article meets those requirements (if you know what I mean). Here is the review by section:

Lead Section

Pass The lead section is very good. It gives the reader of the article an idea of what the book is about and what type of reviews the book received. Another good thing I can note about the lead section is that anything that you did not make up yourself is in quotation marks so it is not plagiarized, and all the reviews are sourced. The lead section is alright.

Author

Pass Great job! That section gives an idea of why the author wrote the book. It doesn't go off topic and tell how old the author is, when the author was born, etc. It is well-sourced. The author section is alright.

Contents

Pass Good job! It's very good that it doesn't just include what each chapter is (I'm pretty sure including each chapter would fail WP:INFO). Instead, it gives the reader of the article an idea of what types of foods are included in the book. I only found one grammar mistake (which was a mistake in the quotation marks; don't worry, I fixed it). The contents section is alright.

Reception

Pass Nice job! Everything quote is in quotation marks so it isn't plagiarized, and each quote is sourced. The reception section is alright.

Overall

Pass The grammar is good (like I said, I only found one mistake, which I fixed, and I'm surprised that's the only mistake you made at all, because it looks like you worked hard on that article!). The article doesn't go off topic, and it is well-sourced. It contains major facts about the book. I understand why it's not illustrated by many images. If it was, the reader would probably just be seeing words in the images! The article is written in a neutral point of view, and I don't see any edit wars in the article's edit history. As you can see, this article passes as a good article! --Ha dg er 22:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]