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

Reviewer: Valereee (talk · contribs) 22:21, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.	Will do this last
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Will need to expand the lead once we're satisfied with 3A. I suspect there are MOS:LAYOUT issues we'll need to deal with; that's not a strong suit of mine, so you may want to go read over that, too -- look for information about how text and sections interact with images, in particular. Also foreign words -- I'm thinking we may need to italicize only the first time? Or maybe only the first time, as long as we translate or explain it that time? I'm guessing there's a MOS for that, too; I'll look for it, but you see if you can find it too.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Should citation 10 be in the explanatory notes section, for consistency?
	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).	There are several assertions that don't have a citation, weren't in the first source in that paragraph, and I can't get to the second source to check if they're there. Are those from that book? Can we add the page numbers, since it's a book? ETA: sources #4 and #19 appear to be blogs. None of the assertions are controversial, but in the case where one of these is an additional support rather than the only support or the best-worded support, we should probably just remove it. And if it's the only support, we should probably find a better source if there is one. If there isn't but it's information that is simply explanatory and the best explanation we're finding, I don't have a problem keeping it.
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Is there a reason you've got the fourth name for the item in a separate sentence? Is kotobuki tamagoyaki yet another name for the pan, I'm seeing that in a google search, I'm actually wondering if we need a section on the name for the pan since there seem to be many? Uses section should probably be Use, unless there's another use for the pan other than making the tamagoyaki? Section off the information about the omelet's uses, as separate from the pan's use. Uses of the omelet probably should include Golden Thread Eggs, per the feldner source, maybe others? Kinshi Tamako, is that another name for the golden trhead eggs?
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Is there a reason for the see also to Tava?
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	There are some photos of the pan in use at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Tamago_yaki_cooking
	7. Overall assessment.

Starting review --valereee (talk) 22:21, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for reviewing this article :D For 3a, I don't quite know why the fourth name was at the end of the lead either, I've put it with the others. I did a search on kotobuki tamagoyaki, and the direct translation just seems to mean "longevity omelette" without any mention on the pan. I'm thinking it could be just be a brand name, since on Amazon "Kotobuki" is one of the companies that sells it. For a new section for names, that could work, but there's not much to explain and we could cut down on clutter by removing the kanji or definitions. I've made Uses into Use, since there really is just one use. The pan/omelette use paragraph has also been split, and kinshi tamago has been added. Kamako (talk) 03:39, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great --valereee (talk) 15:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• 3b-Makiyakinabe seem to used most like crepe pans, but when you type 'crepe pan' into the search bar it redirects to Tava. Since the tava seems to be used for shortbreads, not batter, it isn't really comparable to the makiyakinabe. I've replaced Tava with crepe maker and griddle, which both usually work with batters. Kamako (talk) 03:39, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See MOS:SEEALSO for guidelines -- if something listed under See Also isn't immediately obviously connected (as the list of utensils is), it needs a bit of explanation. How are griddle and crepe maker related items? --valereee (talk) 15:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I've added an explanation for Japanese cooking utensils. In hindsight, griddle and crepe maker are only tangentially related, so I've removed them outright. The see also section looks much cleaner now, actually. Kamako (talk) 20:35, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually wondering if we need a list of Japanese cooking techniques...I see Teriyaki and Robatayaki and I'm wondering if there are others. There's Chinese cooking techniques, I'd think there are enough Japanese, too. I could totally see that as worthy of a See Also listing. --valereee (talk) 20:50, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's nabemono and teppanyaki too...I think there's plenty of content for a list of Japanese cooking techniques. I'll get to it after we go through this article :D Kamako (talk) 07:19, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• 6b-I've added one of the images on there as the one in the lead, and put the regional pans in Design. Kamako (talk) 03:39, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a good change --valereee (talk) 15:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry for the delay, Kamako, the past week has been a holiday week in the US and I've had family in. I'll take another run at this tomorrow! --valereee (talk) 02:05, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, and happy holidays :D Kamako (talk) 05:17, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• 1b-For the image formatting, I see what you did with the clear template and that overlap needs to be limited. I want the pan varieties image to take up less space and not leave the gap between the next section, so I'll try and figure something out for that. For the italics, the tips I've found are MOS:FOREIGN and MOS:FOREIGNITALIC, which advise against overuse of foreign words and calls for the usage of the lang template. I'll try to do that tomorrow with all the Japanese words (there's quite a few, even after I've replaced some with the English counterpart). There's no mention of italic frequency, so for now I've made it so that only the first mention is italicized. Kamako (talk) 06:20, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Kamakou, do you use visual editor? If you edit that image in VE, it will let you set the image size pretty easily. --valereee (talk) 19:23, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I primarily use visual editor, unless it's something that can only be done in source. Now that the sections for Uses and Design are together, I think the images map quite well onto the article, with little overlap and good proportions.

  Okay, and I think we're ready to expand the lead. Ideally we'd have another sentence or two for an article of this length, so maybe one sentence to summarize what's important about eachsection? --valereee (talk) 19:26, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I've added the sentences, but I've gone back to wondering if we should make an etymology section like you mentioned before. MOS:FORLANG says that a single foreign language name is enough in the lead. It also says to avoid showing etymology through foreign words in the lead. The article has gone against both of those guidelines, but if it doesn't contradict any of the six good article criteria, then should we add a new section? Kamako (talk) 05:26, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Kamakou, oh, very good! Yes, I think an etymology section is a good solution to that. I had been thinking that first sentence was very cluttered looking. --valereee (talk) 14:57, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Valereee, I've added the section, and also expanded on the etymology of the all four names. Kamako (talk) 06:31, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• 2b-For the uncited statements, they were all from the book, so I added citations with the page number. For the blog-sources, I've removed two that only provided add-on support for a statement. But, to my knowledge, there isn't another source for the other reference ("There are three types of makiyakinabe: Kantō-type, Kansai-type, and Nagoya-type"). I went to the Japanese counterpart for this article, and they mention the same statement about pan styles with two other sources (one that's a book, and the other I can't access), so the information all lines up over there. I'd say it's clear to stay. Kamako (talk) 04:46, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Kamakou, that works for me! --valereee (talk) 14:57, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Those language templates are making the fonts show up profoundly weird on my machine -- not just italicized but in a different and noticeably smaller font, almost looks like they're not lining up on the same line. We definitely need a different solution. --valereee (talk) 15:11, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Hold off, I've asked for input from another GA reviewer, as I want to make sure I'm not nitpicking something that doesn't need to be nitpicked :D --valereee (talk) 15:37, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Good job on fixing the template. I'm still stymied as to the reason we bother using it, but clearly smarter people than me have decided it's helpful for some reason, so okay! :) --valereee (talk) 20:29, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't quite get it either, but it wasn't much work so I'm not complaining :p Kamako (talk) 20:36, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]