# Talk:Victor Albisu

I was originally going to review the Good Article Nomination, but many of the resources require subscriptions. Instead, I made some efforts to improve the article and leave the review to someone who may feel more comfortable. Matthew Yeager (talk) 01:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your edits @Matthew Yeager! Innisfree987 (talk) 03:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Victor Albisu/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Innisfree987 (talk · contribs) 22:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Scratchinghead (talk · contribs) 12:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
I'll be starting a review... Hopefully i can promote this, thanks. ☢️SCR@TCH!NGH3@D (talk) 12:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 

Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 

B. 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): 

C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 
Overall:
Pass or Fail: Hold 
### Sourcing
some of the sources i found had almost no relation to the fact. For example, the one which was cited had no mention that he grew up in falls church. i had to change the citation to the previous one which did mention it for some reason. another citation was inserted after "plaza latina" as the name of his mother's market which didn't appear anywhere there. i fixed them, so that problem is solved.
Otherwise, I would say the sources are quite good and plenty in number and they support the facts well. i wasn't able to find any plagiarism either (except a close paraphrase which i will mention soon).
### Prose
the prose here has quite a few issues. now first the article (i won't go as far as to say it is riddled with, but) contains a few grammatical errors and the like. That's not my main issue, I believe the article is pov. Clearly, the facts have been cherrypicked from the sources to give a favorable impression. i'll mention a few:
i) The most important one, i believe is the love letter to vienna one. it mentions a few of the best dishes but then goes on to mention some dishes which aren't nearly as great. This hasn't been mentioned in the article.
ii) the obama burger contest one appears as pov language and the "nods to the obama's love of kobe beef, spicy mustard and greens" seems to be quite a close paraphrase and also comes off as unnecessary. i believe this can be fixed, however
iii) the person who praises albisu's "phenomenal cooking" said, fully, " That smoke underpins most of Peruvian chef Victor Albisu's phenomenal cooking at Del Campo, a grand South American restaurant in D. C.'s Chinatown." and i don't think we can include the "phenomenal cooking" part as a standalone.
iv) everything seems to be an overwhelmingly positive review but, the other praises seem to be at least mostly npov.
### Other comments
Everything else is pretty good.
### Conclusion
We must fix the NPOV and the grammar within one week.  ☢️SCR@TCH!NGH3@D (talk) 15:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Hello Scratchinghead,
Thank you very much for your review and also for your additions to the entry, which I feel have improved it. I did deliberate about how best to avoid giving an overly positive description while also accurately representing the fact that most reviews seemed strongly positive, since WP:NPOV does not mean that we leave out opinions if they are positive or negative, only that we reflect them accurately. I think you added a helpful criticism from one review. Are there any other examples of things you feel are missing, from your review of the sources? Also, if you could please point out what grammatical errors you see so I may address them, I would appreciate it.
Meanwhile I have restored just a couple of factual points that your changes misstated (a location, a verb changed from past to present tense), as well as one description from a review that I think is necessary to understand meaning. Let me know how these seem to you. Thanks very much again. Innisfree987 (talk) 05:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
"I did deliberate about how best to avoid giving an overly positive description while also accurately representing the fact that most reviews seemed strongly positive, since WP:NPOV does not mean that we leave out opinions if they are positive or negative" yes, as I said in prose, point iv)
"Meanwhile I have restored just a couple of factual points that your changes misstated (a location, a verb changed from past to present tense), as well as one description from a review that I think is necessary to understand meaning." yes thanks for that, the first 2 no doubt i did it wrong, now the 3rd one, i accidentally removed it thinking it was pov and some sort of praising language but i can see why we need it.
i've also made a few more edits and if you think they're wrong, correct it.
on a side note however, i don't know what to do about the obama's love of beed, and mustard fact. i feel like we can probably keep it but if you have any input on that let me know, and once you do i will be ready to promote the article. ☢️SCR@TCH!NGH3@D (talk) 05:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Oh yes thanks for the reminder about the burger. I definitely think your version is an improvement over what it was; at the same time I do see what you mean about possibly being undue. If briefer seems better, we could trim the quote and just say something like "in reference to favorite foods of the Obamas." I could go either way; it’s nice color to some degree.
The only other change I was thinking of adding back was the description of the Taco Bamba food in the lead; I had liked your edit to it, and the lead is not too long yet so there’s room to summarize a little more of the entry. But it’s also ok without; if you think that’s better, I don’t feel strongly.
Thanks for all your work on this! Innisfree987 (talk) 05:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
ok in that case, i'll make a last edit and then promote it. thank you sir ☢️SCR@TCH!NGH3@D (talk) 06:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Done @Innisfree987 ☢️SCR@TCH!NGH3@D (talk) 06:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks much on all Scratchinghead! Innisfree987 (talk) 10:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)