Jump to content

Talk:Peanut butter and jelly sandwich

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

Unable to edit this article

[edit]

I was going to add a wikilink to this article but was prevented from doing so because it appears to be locked from editing. Please fix this ridiculous situation! 98.123.38.211 (talk) 18:47, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more specific about what you wanted to do? Lynch44 18:48, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

[edit]

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.


GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Peanut butter and jelly sandwich/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 18:40, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Vacant0 (talk · contribs) 19:42, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Will review this. Vacant0 (talkcontribs) 19:42, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This was an interesting read. As you know, food is very underappreciated on Wikipedia, therefore we would benefit from more food editors. If you're interested, you can join us. Vacant0 (talkcontribs) 11:46, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Vacant0 Thanks for helping me with the article! I've replied to everything below. It's definitely interesting writing about foods, though I imagine it gets more difficult for foods that don't have a straightforward history and cultural niche like this one. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 21:09, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Yes, some foods are tough to write, while some are not. Nevertheless, thanks for writing this interesting article. I'll pass this now. Vacant0 (talkcontribs) 10:20, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

[edit]
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, as shown by a source spot-check.
    a (references):
    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, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·

Comments

[edit]
  • All cited sources are reliable, except one, which I'm unsure about (Ref 33, WMC News).
    • Replaced with National Day Calendar, which as far as I can tell is legitimate.
      • Looks better to me.
  • The Category:Vegan cuisine is unsourced.
    • Removed.
  • Have you maybe looked for coverage beyond the United States?
    • Where would I look? All of the general sources I've found specifically describe it as being relevant in the United States.
      • If that's the case, then it's alright. I've read more about PB&J and found out that it is not popular in Europe, which would explain why there are no sources covering the topic outside the United States.
  • "it is popularly associated with Elvis Presley" why?
    • Added some context, I don't want to go off on too much of a tangent here.
  • I find it weird that peanut butter was considered a luxury item but that The New York Times endorsed it for children's lunches in school?
    • It looks like it became more accessible gradually. It went beyond the upper class around 1910(?) and then became mass-produced in the 1920s. I've moved some stuff around to hopefully make this clearer.
  • "It had previously tried purchasing Jif in the 1970s" for the same reason?
    • I assume the motive was ultimately "to make money", which can be assumed. I reworded a bit so no particular motives are implied.
  • "both candidates" → "both major candidates"
    • Good point, fixed.
  • I'd suggest adding the abbreviation PB&J next to the first mention of the sandwich in the body considering that it's backed up by Ref 2.
    • Agreed, done.
  • Spotcheck: Ref 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 20, 24, 26, 30, 31–all verify the content. AGF on other refs.
  • Images are properly licensed and have appropriate captions.
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.