Talk:Fluffernutter/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Σ (talk · contribs) 05:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• Is the sandwich a proper or common noun? The article uses both capitalisations.

"Fluffernutter" is almost always capitalized in all the sources for this article, so that's why almost always capitalized it too. But it is a bit murky. The term has entered the common vocabulary to a certain extent, and I have kept it lowercase in those instances. It is lowercase only three times in this article, and in each instance it's to illustrate the term's wider cultural impact. I'd be happy to capitalize those, if you want me to. Bobnorwal (talk) 15:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I see. Then there is no need to change it, I think. →Στc. 06:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• I strongly recommend that you request copyedit for the article. →Στc. 08:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean at WP:GOCE/REQ? Because I am a member of the Guild of Copyeditors, and I happen to know that that page has been very backed up lately. It could be months before my request is filled. What -- specifically or in general -- do you see wrong with the article in this area? And is there any way I could take care of the problems myself? Bobnorwal (talk) 20:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The method of finding the copyeditor does not matter much to me. I will, though, point out some of the more easily spotted errors. →Στc. 06:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Lead

• There is a one-sentence paragraph near the end.

I'll expand it into 2 or 3 sentences. Bobnorwal (talk) 15:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• ...renamed it Marshmallow Fluff and continue to sell it under that name today... Should be continues
• However, is has... Should be it
• The term "fluffernutter" has also been used Should not be in quotes. You are indicating that it is a term, and as a result, it should be italicised.
• food items that incorporate peanut butter and marshmallow creme, primarily desserts... I think food items, primarily desserts, that incorporate peanut butter and marshmallow creme reads better.

All done. I'll make another pass over the rest of the article, too. Bobnorwal (talk) 23:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Recipe and variations

• For example, Peter Callahan, a New York caterer, serves a Fluffernutter hors d'oeuvre in a toasted ice cream cone with a spoon of peanut butter and torched marshmallow creme on top. Is Peter Callahan's name worth mentioning in the article?

History

• ...published a recipe for the "Liberty Sandwich", which consisted of... Please italicise liberty sandwich
• and may be the origin of the Fluffernutter sandwich. Citation needed.
• "Fluffernutter" is a registered trademark of Durkee-Mower Please italicise fluffernutter.

Done Bobnorwal (talk) 13:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify, do you plan to only pass this after I have found someone else to copy edit it? In that case, I'll put it on the request page now, let this review lapse, then renominate it when the copy edit finally does get done. Of course, I think the article's in pretty good shape by now, but I accept any decision you make. Also, are there any other major gaping holes in this article? Bobnorwal (talk) 23:12, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

No, and no. Also, regarding the speed of this review, I have simply been unable to find much spare time for Wikipedia. →Στc. 00:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

In culture

• Durkee-Mower has produced a handful of jingles for radio and television to advertise Marshmallow Fluff and Fluffternutter sandwiches, including a TV jingle whose lyrics explain how to make the sandwich. I do not think this is worth including.

Alright. I'll remove it. Also, I say take as much time as you need to finish this review. We all have busy lives. Bobnorwal (talk) 20:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   It is rather short, but I believe that currently, its coverage is sufficiently broad.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   By the power vested in me, I hereby dub Fluffernutter a good article. →Στc. 01:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC)