Talk:Whole hog barbecue/GA1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
GA review
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Nominator: AllWeKnowOfHeaven (talk · contribs) 23:14, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 10:32, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
Comments
- This very tidy and informative article is basically completely ready for GA and I have very few comments to make.
- 'History': The first paragraph could be a subsection (or a separate chapter) 'Etymology' as it's not exactly about historical events. The rest of the chapter could be divided into '19th century' and 'Modern' (or equivalent).
done.
- If "white" is lower case, "Black" should be also.
- matched case.
This method of barbecuing its popularity in cooking competitions
... something wrong here.
- fixed this sentence.
- 'Preparation': I see you've wikilinked 'pig' in the lead. I suggest you do the same in the first sentence here.
- done.
- The phrase "whole hog" might imply to readers that the entire animal is barbecued, when actually it is the gralloched carcass that is cooked and eaten. The reader only discovers this currently with the one innocuous-looking word "dressed" in the second paragraph of 'Preparation'. I suggest the dressing/gralloching process should be described in brief detail (i.e. more than one word, and maybe mention "gralloching"), and that this (actually, all of the second paragraph except the last sentence) be placed at the top of the chapter, since it precedes the slow-smoking (i.e. chronological order please).
- Added a gloss for dressing and mentioned it in the lede. I rewrote 'Preparation' slightly and changed the order to be more chronological. I've left the pit description at the top of 'Preparation' because the pit is built first.
are noted to become
-> "become".
- done.
- 'Serving': the last paragraph seems to describe sweet tea as a side, which doesn't seem right! And it might be worth adding a gloss on hushpuppies for readers who think those are shoes.
- done.
Images
- All the images are relevant, on Commons, and plausibly licensed.
Sources
- [6] Reed ok; [10] Veteto Maclin ok, but the point is discussed on other pages also; [30] Egerton ok.
Summary
- An excellent article. Good work! Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:11, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Chiswick Chap: Thank you for the quick and thorough review! I'm going to edit the page and will ping you after. AllWeKnowOfHeaven (talk) 17:56, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Chiswick Chap: Made those changes. AllWeKnowOfHeaven (talk) 18:57, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.