Talk:Cheshire Mammoth Cheese

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This page is within the scope of WikiProject Cheeses, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on cheese on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Food Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Good article Cheshire Mammoth Cheese was a nominee for good article, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on February 19, 2007.
February 22, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed
Cheshire Mammoth Cheese was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: April 7, 2007

Contents

[edit] Cheshire, UK

As this is a featured article I did not want to makes chnages without first using the Discussion page. There is a bit of an error here: "The town of Cheshire, Connecticut was known in the United States and the United Kingdom for its cheese." Cheshire in the United Kingdon is a county and not a town. The county is known for its cheeses, in fact for three types of cheese: red, white & blue. Is it OK to correct this? ThanxTheriac 12:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

That was an error on my part. I'll adjust, thanks for catching it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The West Wing

In the Tv series The West Wing, there are two episodes dedicated to a fictional Big Block of Cheese day. This day is apparently based on some historic event when a historic President of the United of the united states commisioned a large block of cheese to be placed in the reception area of the White House. The american public was invited to eat from the cheese and have a moment to talk to the staff of the president about their issues. Although that particular event is fictionalized, is does the story is based on the Mammoth Cheese, so could count as a reference in fiction.--Janbart 21:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen the show, so I can't speak to that. If you can verify that the "Big Block of Cheese Day" was based on this event, we can certainly add it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA failed

I have failed the article according to the GA criteria. Although it is well-sourced, it is not very well organized. I'd suggest adding some more headings and expanding on the article, because it fails the broad aspect as well. Keep looking for more sources to further expand the article. Once you have addressed these issues and the other criteria for a GA, please renominate again. --Nehrams2020 20:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The headings help the organization, but I think you've somewhat understated the amount of sources. I'll renominate for extra opinion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA on hold

Okay, there are some issues here, but don't worry, you have a good start, and with a little TLC this article can be elevated to the standards of a deserving GA.

  1. The prose. The 'History' and 'Making of cheese' are written a bit too informally, consider recasting in a more formal tone. I can provide examples but read it aloud to yourself first.
  2. Watch for redundancies, such as "written by," for example.
  3. Thoroughness. This is a major aspect of GA, not as thorough as FA but it should touch on all major points. Things that I would include would be: What happened to the cheese? i.e. how did it meet its bitter end. The historic nature of the cheese site, I saw a plaque there. Is this site on the National Register or is a local historic site, in some way protected or taken care of, etc. Overall impact, on the town? What if anything did the cheese project do for the political climate, locally? nationally? Was this a nationally significant event? Note it if it was.
  4. NPOV: It is a pretty bold claim to say old Cheshire helped Jefferson win the presidency, while it may technically be true, the implication is that it swayed the ballot.
  5. Refs need to be properly formatted. The templates at WP:CITET will give you an idea of what info to include in your citations, I don't use the templates myself but they do provide a good reference point to know what to include in your cites.
  6. Images: Not required for GA but nice, you know the story there, consider contacting the corresponding WikiProjects, Mass etc.
  7. I would suggest putting in a request for copy edit with the League of Copyeditors when you finish your expansion and such.
  8. Expansion: I would try to expand on each of the sections as much as possible. Further research may be necessary.

That is a basic overview of what I have noticed so far. The on hold technically expires after seven days but if you need a bit more that's cool too. You can comment above or below here or whatever. Good luck senor. IvoShandor 04:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah and the lead will need to conform to WP:LEAD. I will add other stuff if I think of and/or notice it. IvoShandor 04:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look at these and check back in. Thanks, seriously. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay:
  1. I think I've adjusted this a bit. The source material is very flowery, so it's not as easy as it looks.
  2. Fixed, I believe.
  3. Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure this is everything. There's not much else to say, many of the sources, when not contradicting themselves, say the same thing. I've expanded as best I can (finding a reliable source on what happened to the cheese wasn't easy).
  4. Actually, he did believe that. But I've adjusted it, good catch.
  5. The refs are proper - I've had GAs with similar referencing.
  6. I've already put in a request, I'll probably have to go down myself once the weather gets better.
  7. I'll certainly request a copyedit following this process, especially if I think I can bring it any further.
  8. This really covers everything, there's not that much to say, and the stuff I added is really insignificant as is.
Let me know what you're thinking. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I disagree on the refs, the websites, at very least need publisher and date of last access (which a couple lack) so they can be found if the links go dead, via the wayback machine or something, the books should have ISBN numbers too, so anyone can find them. The lead still doesn't represent a good summary, it should be at least a paragraph. Maybe change the inspiration to influence. I wonder if several sections could be combined under history and lose the subsections as they tend to break up what otherwise seeems like it should be together. Tidy up a bit around here and I think this will be a good, short GA, they do exist. IvoShandor 08:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Looking again I am torn on the subsectioning, perhaps one less? IvoShandor 08:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Also suggest searching any available material from Boston, Philly etc during the period to see if the event received coverage, or to gauge its significance overall. Washington DC press too? Maybe this stuff is on microfiche, some databases at the library might help too, proquest, 19th century masterfile, etc... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by IvoShandor (talk • contribs) 10:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC).
  • I also immediately see problems with the references, like there are no page numbers.
  • This article has been on hold too long. It should only be on hold 2-7 days. If the work can't be completed in that time, the article should be failed and resubmitted when it is ready.

Fluffball70 23:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't seem relevant to GA, that's primarily an FA concern. According to the criteria as long as you cite reliable sources your good, which means anyway described at citing sources, which would qualify even embedded html links. I wouldn't worry about the ref comment, though proper formatting is nice I doubt anyone has ever left an article scratching their heads asking "why weren't the refs properly formatted?" Most users of this site are readers not editors. But the article will have to be failed, the lead alone is enough really and it has been on hold too long. IvoShandor 01:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I've been on my honeymoon, give me a little more time here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
...or not. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)