Jump to content

Talk:Bazzini

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

339 Greenwich Street

[edit]

The building is now a Wikidata item (Q108151913). It has coordinates, so chances are one fine day on my way to elsewhere I'll notice it in WikiShootMe or Commons App and we'll have a photo. Or someone else will. Jim.henderson (talk) 13:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barton's

[edit]

Nuts240 This is way too much material about a company this company acquired, with nearly all of the information predating the acquisition. I'm going to hold off reverting for the moment because of the inuse tag (maybe you're trimming it back), but I can't see more than like a single paragraph about Barton's in this article. I'm barely familiar with Barton's, but if they operated 3,000 stores, it's extremely likely it's notable enough for a stand-alone article, which this article can refer to. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:51, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Advice accepted; I'll first make it a standalone article, then trim the section. Nuts240 (talk) 03:06, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Bazzini/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Amitchell125 (talk · contribs) 15:37, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a. (reference section):
    b. (citations to reliable sources):
    c. (OR):
    d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a. (major aspects):
    b. (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
    b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Happy to review this article. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:37, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Review comments

[edit]

Lead section

[edit]
Not yet done in the text. AM
? New York isn't linked in the lead. It was linked in the caption, which I removed. Do you mean New York City? Assuming that's what you mean, I removed it. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no need to cite the text in the lead section, as it is not controversial.
    •  Done
Not yet done. AM
 Done missed one. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would refer to Antonio Bazzini as a composer, not a violinist.
    •  Done
  • Link Greenwich Street; Allentown (Allentown, Pennsylvania).
    • Did first. Allentown already linked in the first sentence.
  • Adding: I removed "Bazzini Brothers" as the quality of the sources where I see that name aren't good enough. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

History

[edit]
  • The link to Washington Market does not lead to where you expect it to (the lead links Tribeca separately, which is what I would do).
    • Not sure I understand. It leads to where we cover Washington Market, mentioned there in boldtext. I suppose it would be consistent to change the link in the lead to also point to that section?
Yes, you need to be consistent. AM
 Done
  • started the company in 1886 – the company’s name should be included here in full, as the main text of the article is separate from the lead section.
    •  Done
  • moved up to The Bronx - ‘moved up to the Bronx’.
    •  Done
  • they relocated – ‘the company relocated’ sounds clearer imo.
    •  Done
  • Introduce Jimmy Carter.
    •  Done reworded
  • Link food wholesalers (Wholesale marketing of food); ton (you need to be specific about which kind of ton is being referred to); Virginia; North Carolina; Georgia; blanched (Blanching (cooking)); Manhattan; condominium; candy; Allentown, Pennsylvania.
    •  Done
  • oil or dry-roasted - ‘oil- or dry-roasted’.
    •  Done
  • Who is Rocco Damato?
  • In 2011, it acquired – the text could be made clearer by specifying what it is referring to here.
  • (FDA) - can be omitted, as the abbreviation is not used later in the article.
    •  Done
  • up to code – consider replacing this with something less informal.
  • As of 2017, it is the oldest nut company in the United States. - this seems strange right at the end of the section, I would put it at the very start.
    • ? Doesn't a history section typically go chronologically? I tried moving it around, but it always seemed odd to mix the historical information with something about 2017 (i.e. putting the last part of its history at the beginning of the history section). IMO its presence in the lead means we shouldn't worry about putting at at the top of this section? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:30, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can see what you mean, I think the issue was probably that this last paragraph of the History section has information that isn't really historical, it's more a description of the current company. Suggestion (not GA, so please ignore me if you wish): consider preceding the History section with another one ('Organisation'?) that includes what the company sells, where it's currently based, the CEO, and its trademark. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:19, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bazzini Building

[edit]
 Not done OK, but the term first occurs in the lead section, so that's where it should be written in bold, not here (see MOS:BOLD). Amitchell125 (talk) 06:01, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • in Renaissance – ‘in the Renaissance’ sounds better imo.
    •  Done
  • A large number of businesses… - this long sentence makes little sense at present, splitting it into separate ones would help, I think.
    • The sentence in question is "A large number of businesses, mostly food wholesalers, operated out of the building in the first half of the 20th century." Could you say more about how that would be split? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:34, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, my bad! AM

References

[edit]
  • Ref 1 (Anthony Depalma) shouldn't contain text in capitals (MOS:ALLCAPS). Other references where this occurs (e.g. Ref 8 (Claiborne)) should also be amended.
    •  Done
  • It would imo help readers if Ref 1 (Anthony Depalma) included “url-access= subscription”, as you need to log in to access it. Other references linking to unarchived NYT pages would also benefit from being amended in this way (e.g. Ref 3 (Buckley)).
Not all done, but it was a suggestion, not a requirement for GA. AM

More comments to follow shortly. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:01, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments

[edit]
  • There’s almost nothing in the article about fruit or chocolate products, or indeed any of the different products sold under the brand name of Bazzini.
    • The tough thing is searching for this kind of information. There are a lot of ads and false positives to sift through. I found a few sources which list them in the most basic, generalized way, so have added those. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:09, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The official website is not mentioned.
    •  Done
  • There is nothing about any of the company's advertising campaigns.
I thought I saw stuff before, but now can't, so ignore me. AM
  • Consider including an infobox using {{Infobox company}}.
  • The Bazzini logo could be uploaded for this article (I’m happy to do this for you).
    •  Done
  • Not GA, but I would add the WikiProject Brands on the talk page.
    •  Done

On hold

[edit]

I'm putting the article on hold for a week until 28 April to allow time for the issues raised to be addressed. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 19:09, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Passing now

[edit]

One minor issue yet to be unresolved, so the article has passed. Congratulations! Amitchell125 (talk) 06:24, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by BorgQueen (talk) 11:24, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by Amitchell125 (talk) and Rhododendrites (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 02:44, 5 May 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Bazzini; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

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: GA article nominated for DYK --evrik (talk) 18:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bazzini&oldid=1205682487"