Talk:Daniel Frank Gerber/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: PinkElixir (talk · contribs) 03:21, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be taking up this review! Kind regards, PinkElixir (talk) 03:21, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	There were some writing issues that I fixed before completing this review. Overall, the prose is clear and concise.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead section could better reflect the contents of the article as a whole. There are no issues with "words to watch." Headings and sections are appropriately ordered and titled. Done
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Information is properly sourced. The references follow MOS:REFERENCES.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	All content is appropriately sourced using appropriate WP:RS.
	2c. it contains no original research.	There is no WP:OR.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	There are no signs of WP:PLAG or WP:CV.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The article focuses on relevant main aspects of the topic. Perhaps, if sources hold such information, the Early Life and Personal Life sections may be expanded.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	There are some areas where the article seems to describe more about the company than the man himself. This is especially prevalent in the Mid-life section. Done
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The article follows NPOV.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	There is no history of edit warring or content dispute on the article.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	The images used are either users' own work or part of Wikipedia Commons.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The image used and its caption are relevant to the topic.
	7. Overall assessment.	I think this article is well on its way to passing, but not quite there yet. I would suggest the following improvements be made before renominating it: make sure the lead accurately reflects the rest of the content in the article. The current lead, and the article as a whole in some areas, reads more like it is about Gerber the company, and not Gerber the man himself. I would also try to find more information to increase the number of sources in general. In addition, I might check out how other food entrepreneur's pages are outlined for ideas on how to further improve the page. For example, the page for John Stith Pemberton nicely balances information about his company (Coca Cola) and information on him (what the page should focus on). Please feel free to reach out on my talk page if you have any questions! Done

Thanks for review. I'll start addressing the issues today. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:29, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@PinkElixir: All issues have been addressed. Can you take another look. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:08, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Coldwell: Hi there, thanks for making these changes. I made a few more of my own. The article has passed! ✓ Pass