Talk:Pupusa/GA1

GA review

The following discussion 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.

---

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

Nominator: PizzaKing13 (talk · contribs) 18:40, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Vigilantcosmicpenguin (talk · contribs) 05:08, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

• I'll take this one. It's great to see a GA about a food, which is a notoriously poorly covered topic area on Wikipedia. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 05:08, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

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.	Prose is good.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead section is an adequate summary. No WTW issues. Layout is reasonable, with no sections that are too short.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Sources are listed.
	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).	Article is cited to newspapers and subject matter experts.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Article is faithful to sources.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig says 2.9%.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Article describes what pupusa is along with its origins, popularity, and cultural and economic significance.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	All statements are relevant.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Article addresses the major debate surrounding pupusa without giving bias toward either side.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	This article has faced some strong disputes in the past, but the most recent revert was 10 months ago.
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 free to use. (Including a photo by you, thanks!)
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images depict pupusas and are relevant to the sections they are in.
	7. Overall assessment.	Article meets the GA criteria. Also makes me hungry.

Initial comments

• I should first note the main dispute surrounding this article, which is about how to address the "origin". I believe the article, as it stands now, meets the current consensus that has been reached—it accurately reflects RSes to say that Honduras and El Salvador both have claims to being the origin.
• Most of the sources are good-quality. However, I'll bring up a few points:
  • I'm not sure about Council on Hemispheric Affairs. In any case, it doesn't actually verify what it is cited for: it mentions that Honduras and El Salvador both claim the pupusa culturally, but this is different from saying they are the origin of pupusa. (The other source used for this statement is fine.)
  • What makes the Vanderbilt Center for Latin American Studies a reliable source? It's at least affiliated with a university, but I see no indication that this PDF was published with any peer review or editorial oversight.
  • What makes Guanacos.com a reliable source?
  • What makes El Salvador Info a reliable source?
  • What makes Revista Cultural Biblioteca Islámica a reliable source? It isn't indexed in Scimago.
  • Restaurantes.la does not appear to be a reliable source. This source is only cited in an image caption, so I think it would be acceptable to not have a citation here.
  • (For the sake of completeness: the paper by Jorge E. Lemus is self-published, but I agree with its inclusion; this counts as an SME as the paper is cited by RSes such as La Prensa Gráfica.)
• With regard to the breadth requirement: I have done a quick check of culinary reference works and Salvadoran publications, and it appears that only fairly minor details are excluded.
• The sections "Economic impact" and "Records" are quite short, and I think these paragraphs should instead be included in "Cultural significance#El Salvador".

• I moved economic impact. I kept records cuz it applies to both El Salvador and the US so it cant go in one section only.

• @Pizzaking13: I think the size of the "Records" section is still a problem. Perhaps it could go in the "History" section? If you disagree, I'll accept it either way. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 23:11, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

@PizzaKing13: fixing ping — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 23:12, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

@Vigilantcosmicpenguin: I think that's fair. I moved it to that section. PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 23:45, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

• I'll be doing some copyedits myself for grammar, etc.

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 05:38, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Lead section

• The lead says It is typically accompanied with curtido and tomato sauce. However, the body merely says It can be served with these, which is slightly different.

• Reworded

• Lead section is a bit on the short side. I think the lead should mention that the dish originated in the Pre-Columbian era, and perhaps also mention that it spread to the United States.

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 06:18, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

• Expanded

Etymology

• Upon first mention of the Nawat language, perhaps specify that it was spoken by the Pipil people. Otherwise it's a bit confusing for readers later on.

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 06:18, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

• Added

Origin

• The statement the World Trade Organization listed El Salvador as the origin of the pupusa appears to be a misreading of the source. The source says that the WTO gave El Salvador a Denominación de Origen, NOT that it recognized El Salvador as the dish's origin.

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 06:18, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

• Fixed

History

• This section looks good.

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 06:18, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Preparation

• Could this section mention that pupusas are a street food? I think that's a fairly significant detail.

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 06:18, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

• Added

Cultural significance

• The statement The dish's importance grew significantly during the Salvadoran Civil War … should be moved to the "History" section.

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 06:18, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

• I disagree that this belongs in the history section. The sentence talks about its cultural importance so it belongs in this section. PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 19:55, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

• Makes sense. I was thinking that, since it mentions both El Salvador and the United States, it shouldn't be in the El Salvador section, but it works either way. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 23:11, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Economic impact

• This section looks good.

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 06:18, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

World records

• with the most recent being in 2024 is RELTIME.

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 06:18, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

• Reworded PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 19:55, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Source spotcheck

• I'll be doing a spotcheck of 9 randomly selected sources. As of this revision:

3. Y N (As I mentioned above, the statement about the WTO is inaccurate) N Doesn't appear to verify the statement about the Civil War Y Y Y Y
7. Y Y N Doesn't verify that rice pupusas spread across the country Y Except it doesn't quite verify the word "localized"
8. Y
9. Y Y Except I think you kind of misread the source, as the Food and Agriculture Association is actually cited for a different statement
10. Y Y Y And I also think the 1897 Honduran attestation should be mentioned, in order to give due weight to the viewpoint
11. Y Y Y Y Y Y
17. Y
20. Y
26. Y

• @PizzaKing13: Alright, looks like there are a few mistakes I've noted in the spotcheck. Also a few potential unreliable sources to address. Putting this on hold for now. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 22:54, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

• @Vigilantcosmicpenguin: Everything should be good. PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 20:21, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

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.