Talk:Bacon and Hams/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 16:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll leave some comments within 24 hours and will mainly focus on copyediting issues. Thanks, ☠ Jaguar ☠ 16:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Initial comments

Lead

• "The book details the then-modern bacon industry which was not the current definition of bacon as known today" - interesting, how so?

Cause it included entire sides of the pig - it was not the thin strips of bacon or the "thicker cut" as commonly referred to. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:38, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• "The book includes the history of the pig" - such as? Is this referring to the history of the species itself or the history of the bacon they produce?

History of the pig species is more specific I guess here. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:38, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• The lead is on the short side, but given the size of this article it summarises it well. To improve readability however I think that some more terms in the lead could be linked, for example Wiltshire, pig or anything else which could be elaborated.

But it doesn't have an article like the Wessex Saddleback does. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:38, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Author

• The first half of the second paragraph regarding George J. Nicholls' occupations are unreferenced.

No, it is not - it is all sourced to the same reference as per the usual style. I did not want to citation overkill it, but it still the same ref. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Contents

• "The Large White Yorkshire breed is traced to Robert Bakewell" - who?

Linked. And added a bit more info, I stress the traced, but the real clarity about this subject is more obscure and not know to history. I doubt it was more clear even in a century ago. Hopefully resolved that issue. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:47, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Release

• ""admirable and important treatise."[4] - remove full stop in quotation as per WP:MOS

Done. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

References

The refs all check out so this meets the GA criteria. The only concern are the lack of refs in the author section.

On hold

Other than those points, the thing that worries me slightly is the overall length of the article. Some of the lead seems choppy and with some light copyediting this would have a better chance of passing the GAN. I understand that information on a 1917 book about bacon is hard to come by but to improve the prose a small expansion and a minor copyedit could bring this article into better shape. I'll put this on hold for seven days and will see if it meets the GA criteria until then. Regards, ☠ Jaguar ☠ 16:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm tweaking it a little. The key fact is that while it is still "bacon" the cuts being processed and shown throughout the book are not these 1/32 or 1/16th inch cuts that are so popular. The term "common bacon" is used because it is so prevalent, whereas the cuts referred to here are more pork belly with the rind. The term Ham is pretty tight and used to refer exclusively to meat from the hind leg of swine, whereas the Wiltshire cut... I think I'll go an resolve this major issue for Americans actually. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:14, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Alright, I think I resolved it @Jaguar:, the key problem was that "bacon" is referring to the cured whole side of pig which is then cut and processed. The fact that bacon is completely terrible in describing anything related to this is a very serious issue that is beyond this article. In order to get proper context I had to create a terminology section to set out the contemporary usage from the current usage. I also expanded the contents to cover the target audience. I did not expand on the practices and details shown within, as many issues would need to be resolved for context alongside the key fact that those processing methods go against just about every code there currently in effect. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Close - promoted

@ChrisGualtieri: thank you for those swift improvements. It's pretty impressive for an almost 100 year old book which is unknown to be this comprehensive and well-written. I agree with you regarding overkill with limited references. This article is compact and comprehensive for the subject of bacon and now it should meet the GA criteria. From a reader's perspective it is clear and concise. Also taking in account with the limited references, it shouldn't be a problem here as it would not interfere with the article (and the book is from 1917). Anyway, well done on another GA! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 18:46, 10 November 2014 (UTC)