Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/French fries/1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

French fries[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion is to delist the article.

A close of this reassessment was requested at WP:CR. Since G/A assessment in January 2018, the raw size of the article has grown by about 25% with about 50% more references being added and some significant restructuring. Referencing is the primary issue identified in the reassessment. Recipe books are an acceptable source, provided they meet WP:RS and the info cited is WP:VER. In some cases, I would agree with the point that a WP:SPS source can be acceptable. But these are not the main issues. There is a high reliance on web sources questioned herein on the basis of WP:RS and WP:VER and this remains unresolved. I did take a small sample of the sources listed as questionable to verify the evidence and am satisfied that there are unresolved issues of consequence. I acknowledge that there has been some effort to improve the article to the expected standard. Despite this, it appears unlikely, given where progress now stands, that the matters will be sufficiently addressed in the foreseeable future. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: delist Cinderella157 (talk) 10:15, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to the article since the review have added an unreferenced section. Changes to the lede contain typographical errors (the last sentence of the lede is without a full stop).

There are at least two references to wordpress blogs. The section on France contains measurements for different cuts of fries but doesn't provide references. The list of "popular options" for dipping sauces in the Belgium section is unsourced. (Zigeuner sauce is served with schnitzel and not a dipping sauce for fries.) The content about vacuum fryers in the preparation section is unsourced. The last sentence of the South Africa section is unsourced.

I was very tempted to demote it unilaterally based on the self-published Wordpress references. However, I think it can be fixed if any editors are willing to go over it again. Spudlace (talk) 01:52, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there are major sourcing issues. For the record, sauce tzigane really is served with fries and I doubt you could buy a schnitzel in Belgium or the Netherlands if you tried... —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:25, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@AmericanAir88: as the person who got it to GA status. Aircorn (talk) 23:29, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Missing full stop – is that really the sort of thing to bring up at a GAR? It's the sort of thing that we just routinely go and fix, not make a song and dance about. SpinningSpark 23:09, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did some work on it. I think it is good enough to remain a Good Article now. Aircorn (talk) 09:48, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Aircorn: thank you for making the improvements. The lede is much better now. Some of the references may still be UGC - just looking it over quickly, we could probably do without The Countertop Cook. If others are satisfied with it, these could just be fixed by normal editing without demoting the article. Spudlace (talk) 03:37, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I know most of the word soups, but what is UGC? Aircorn (talk) 03:54, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's just the same as WP:SPS. Spudlace (talk) 04:05, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:UGC – "user generated content". It's not quite the same as SPS which is sometimes acceptable. UGC is never acceptable unless the author can be identified and determined to be an acceptable SPS. SpinningSpark 13:28, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Spudlace: Which sources do you think are still problematic? I don't want to go through nearly 100 refs and guess which ones you meant. SpinningSpark 13:32, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The only item that does have a rationale is because it calls for readers to submit recipes. Perhaps it does, but the fact that it has a large editorial board is usually taken (by us) as a sign that there is some editorial oversight, fact-checking, and material is not published uncritically. The author of the piece cited is Lauren Habermehl who appears to be a respected food writer and blogger. According to Muck Rack she is previously published in Reader's Digest and the Tri-state Times. There is at least an arguable case for her as an acceptable source under WP:SPS.
On citing recipes, I've had this discussion on other articles. WP:NOTRECIPE does NOT mean we should not cite recipe books. Recipe books are, in fact, the very place where one would expect to find reliable information on recipes. And yes, there is usually more than one way to make any dish. If you had found sources that seriously contradict our article you might have had a point, but without them it is just a version of a WP:SOURCESMUSTEXIST argument.
In short, this is a scattergun criticism of this article with little real substance behind it. SpinningSpark 12:41, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The concern I have is citing a recipe for "X dish is made in Y way." Otherwise I could cite this recipe to support the sentence "Risotto is made with brown rice, vegetable broth, and mushrooms." It can made that way, but as a generalized statement it's not accurate, and is original research. (t · c) buidhe 20:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that none of those sources are great. It does depend a bit on what they are referencing. A recipe book would be fine to source that a certain dish exists, but not much else. I found a better one for the first and changed the wording of the statement the second referenced so it made no further comments beyond the dish existing. Forbes is not MEDS compliant so that source needs to be changed and I think someone should at least put in an effort to see if better sources exist for the others mentioned. I am sort of done with this article for now as I only started editing it because I saw it here and I want to focus on other topics. As an aside I decided to completely rearrange the "by country" section as I think it encourages UNDUEness as the French and Belgian origin dispute should be given more weight. I think it is alright, but not great. I hope someone else decides to look into the remaining sources highlighted by Buidhe. Aircorn (talk) 18:29, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Aircorn pls check that I have taken all of the required actions. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:27, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Just added this to the archive[1] Aircorn (talk) 01:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/French_fries/1&oldid=1056863468"