Talk:Michel Roux/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 04:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC) I am proposing to review this article and plan to start in the next couple of days. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 04:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First reading

There are some complex sentences in the lead which would benefit from being divided into shorter sentences. The second sentence in the first paragraph is one of these. There are further confusing sentences in the section "Biography". I will mention a few but I think you should read the article through carefully trying to look at it from the perspective of someone unfamiliar with the restaurant business. Many of the sentences introduce too many different topics in one sentence.

"He became an apprentice to Camille Loyal in Belleville, working seventy hour weeks which included making up to sixty Galette des Rois over the course of three days for Epiphany."
"He would later recall that both people thought he was mad for travelling to England, and what he thought was the horrific state of English cooking at the time,[1] describing it as "the dark ages"." - What do you mean by "both people"?
"After the opening party, which was attended by celebrities such as Charlie Chaplin and Ava Gardner, Chaplin was reportedly shuttled across London every night for a week so he could eat there."
"The same rating for the Waterside Inn would follow in 1985, but Le Gavroche would go back down to two stars in 1993 and never regain them" - Regain what?

The sentence structure in the other sections after "Biography" is much better. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:00, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a copy edit to the biography section and should have fixed those points highlighted above. I've made modifications to make the chef-speak a bit easier - although I've had to add links where it would have taken too long to explain (sous chef for instance). Miyagawa (talk) 09:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the liberty of doing a bit more copyediting. If you don't like what I have done, please reverse it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:09, 3 September 2012 (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.	Copyediting has been done and I believe the prose is now up to standard.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Would it be better to rename the section "Biography" to "Career" in view of the fact you have a seection "Personal life"? 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.	The article seems appropriately referenced.
	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).	The article is well sourced.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Not as far as I can see.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The article addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	I'm not sure that the part about how he met his second wife is encyclopaedic. Now improved.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No problems with POV.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Article was much expanded in mid August and has remained stable since then.
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.	Images are appropriately licensed.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images are relevant and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	I believe this article now meets the Good article criteria. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed Biography to Career (and I'll keep that in mind for future articles), and cut down the information relating to his second wife. It was a nice story, but unencyclopedic. Miyagawa (talk) 16:14, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]