General info
- Whose work are you reviewing?
User:Saania Saxena
- Link to draft you're reviewing
- User:Saania Saxena/Linguine
- Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
- Linguine
Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead
You've left the lead alone, I think -- which means that in places, the lead has more detail than the article section (like for etymology). The lead should be a summary of the article's top points, so in some cases you might want to swap what's in the section with what is in the current lead -- that way the lead can serve its function of giving an overview while the sections give details. Take a look and see if you agree?
Content
You've found a lot of solid information to extend what's in the article. This was a serious challenge, and you rose to the occasion -- wow!
Tone and Balance
One tweak I would recommend is toning down the health claims; Wikipedia is very cautious about that type of content -- there are all kinds of misinformation campaigns about supplements, nutrition, and so on, so the general approach is to have a very high bar for references that make health claims. Check how the Whole grain article handles this question, for example. I'd say leave out the whole grains sentence.
I have some doubts that Mario Batalli really discovered linguine with clam sauce -- I would either figure out how to narrow this claim down to something a bit more encyclopedic or leave this out. It does seem like he has a famous version of the dish, seemingly what's of interest here is something in his ideas about how to prepare the clams and add more spice to the dish, but I don't see a strong case here for including him in the article about linguine (his bio on Wikipedia doesn't mention linguine, for example).
Sources and References
Most of your sources look good, although in need of a little bit of cleanup and there's some repetition. I'll do some cleaning to help you. The Disney source will need to be swapped for something else. Pantry Pursuits and Share the Pasta look like blogs, maybe you can find alternatives for those as well? Published cookbooks can be good sources, often you can read these in a digital form online, or perhaps you have some on your shelf at home.
Organization
Your structure looks good to me. I feel like the nutrition facts and box probably belong higher in the order. The linguine vs spaghetti section makes sense but it seems a bit long for the point being made -- you introduce the list of similarities and differences with a colon, which leads me to expect a list of short points, but then there are four paragraphs with the similarities and differences. There's probably some better way to present this -- more like a list of bullets?
Images and media
Great contributions here.
Overall impressions
Awesome work on a tough topic. Make a revision pass based on this feedback; I'll take another look and then let's plan to make your changes live!
General info
- Whose work are you reviewing?
User:Saania Saxena
- Link to draft you're reviewing
- User:Saania Saxena/Linguine
- Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
- Linguine
Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead
You've left the lead alone, I think -- which means that in places, the lead has more detail than the article section (like for etymology). The lead should be a summary of the article's top points, so in some cases you might want to swap what's in the section with what is in the current lead -- that way the lead can serve its function of giving an overview while the sections give details. Take a look and see if you agree?
Content
You've found a lot of solid information to extend what's in the article. This was a serious challenge, and you rose to the occasion -- wow!
Tone and Balance
One tweak I would recommend is toning down the health claims; Wikipedia is very cautious about that type of content -- there are all kinds of misinformation campaigns about supplements, nutrition, and so on, so the general approach is to have a very high bar for references that make health claims. Check how the Whole grain article handles this question, for example. I'd say leave out the whole grains sentence.
I have some doubts that Mario Batalli really discovered linguine with clam sauce -- I would either figure out how to narrow this claim down to something a bit more encyclopedic or leave this out. It does seem like he has a famous version of the dish, seemingly what's of interest here is something in his ideas about how to prepare the clams and add more spice to the dish, but I don't see a strong case here for including him in the article about linguine (his bio on Wikipedia doesn't mention linguine, for example).
Sources and References
Most of your sources look good, although in need of a little bit of cleanup and there's some repetition. I'll do some cleaning to help you. The Disney source will need to be swapped for something else. Pantry Pursuits and Share the Pasta look like blogs, maybe you can find alternatives for those as well? Published cookbooks can be good sources, often you can read these in a digital form online, or perhaps you have some on your shelf at home.
Organization
Your structure looks good to me. I feel like the nutrition facts and box probably belong higher in the order. The linguine vs spaghetti section makes sense but it seems a bit long for the point being made -- you introduce the list of similarities and differences with a colon, which leads me to expect a list of short points, but then there are four paragraphs with the similarities and differences. There's probably some better way to present this -- more like a list of bullets?
Images and media
Great contributions here.
Overall impressions
Awesome work on a tough topic. Make a revision pass based on this feedback; I'll take another look and then let's plan to make your changes live!