![]() | Two Roosters Ice Cream is currently an Agriculture, food and drink good article nominee. Nominated by Johnson 524 at 13:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC) An editor has placed this article on hold to allow improvements to be made to satisfy the good article criteria. Recommendations have been left on the review page, and editors have seven days to address these issues. Improvements made in this period will influence the reviewer's decision whether or not to list the article as a good article. Short description: Ice cream parlor in North Carolina |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | A fact from Two Roosters Ice Cream appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 17 June 2024 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
The result was: promoted by
AirshipJungleman29
talk
13:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Johnson 524 15:19, 24 May 2024 (UTC).
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
QPQ: Done. |
Overall:
Looks good. Nice work. @
Johnson524: I wonder though whether the section titled "Criticism and awards" is appropriate since everything mentioned there seems to be positive. Not someone required to be changed for this to be approved, though.
BeanieFan11 (
talk)
22:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Nominator: Johnson524 ( talk · contribs) 13:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: TrademarkedTWOrantula ( talk · contribs) 12:32, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Sweet! (gonna claim this review before others do, hehe)
TWOrantulaTM (
enter the web)
12:32, 21 June 2024 (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. | All grammar and typos have been corrected. Prose has been cleaned up. |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Lead section is of adequate length. Layout is correct per MOS:LAYOUT. Article is not overrun with words from the WTW list. Fiction and list incorporation policies do not apply. |
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. | A reference section is provided. |
![]() |
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 mostly sources from local television stations and The News & Observer. |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | Spotchecking proves there is no original research. |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | According to Earwig, the top result is at a 9.1% similarity! Well done! |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | The reception section contains little information other than local awards. Information from more national sources would satisfy the broad coverage criterion. |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Article stays on-topic. It does not list every ice cream flavor they have had (which would be a violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE). |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Article is neutral; it does not try to promote or criticize the restaurant itself. |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Article is stable. No edit wars have occurred as of this review. |
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. | Logo has valid fair use rationale. Physical location and ice cream photos are published under a CC0 1.0 license. |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Logo photo shows what the logo looks like. Physical location photo shows what the building looks like. Ice cream sample photo shows what they serve. |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | Ahh my ice cream is melting ahhhhhhhh |
![]() | Two Roosters Ice Cream is currently an Agriculture, food and drink good article nominee. Nominated by Johnson 524 at 13:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC) An editor has placed this article on hold to allow improvements to be made to satisfy the good article criteria. Recommendations have been left on the review page, and editors have seven days to address these issues. Improvements made in this period will influence the reviewer's decision whether or not to list the article as a good article. Short description: Ice cream parlor in North Carolina |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | A fact from Two Roosters Ice Cream appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 17 June 2024 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
The result was: promoted by
AirshipJungleman29
talk
13:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Johnson 524 15:19, 24 May 2024 (UTC).
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
QPQ: Done. |
Overall:
Looks good. Nice work. @
Johnson524: I wonder though whether the section titled "Criticism and awards" is appropriate since everything mentioned there seems to be positive. Not someone required to be changed for this to be approved, though.
BeanieFan11 (
talk)
22:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Nominator: Johnson524 ( talk · contribs) 13:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: TrademarkedTWOrantula ( talk · contribs) 12:32, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Sweet! (gonna claim this review before others do, hehe)
TWOrantulaTM (
enter the web)
12:32, 21 June 2024 (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. | All grammar and typos have been corrected. Prose has been cleaned up. |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Lead section is of adequate length. Layout is correct per MOS:LAYOUT. Article is not overrun with words from the WTW list. Fiction and list incorporation policies do not apply. |
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. | A reference section is provided. |
![]() |
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 mostly sources from local television stations and The News & Observer. |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | Spotchecking proves there is no original research. |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | According to Earwig, the top result is at a 9.1% similarity! Well done! |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | The reception section contains little information other than local awards. Information from more national sources would satisfy the broad coverage criterion. |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Article stays on-topic. It does not list every ice cream flavor they have had (which would be a violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE). |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Article is neutral; it does not try to promote or criticize the restaurant itself. |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Article is stable. No edit wars have occurred as of this review. |
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. | Logo has valid fair use rationale. Physical location and ice cream photos are published under a CC0 1.0 license. |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Logo photo shows what the logo looks like. Physical location photo shows what the building looks like. Ice cream sample photo shows what they serve. |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | Ahh my ice cream is melting ahhhhhhhh |