Talk:Two Roosters Ice Cream
![]() | Two Roosters Ice Cream is currently an Agriculture, food and drink good article nominee. Nominated by Johnson524 at 13:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC) An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria. Further reviews are welcome from any editor who has not contributed significantly to this article (or nominated it), and can be added to the review page, but the decision whether or not to list the article as a good article should be left to the first reviewer. Short description: Ice cream parlor in North Carolina |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | A fact from Two Roosters Ice Cream appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 17 June 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
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 AirshipJungleman29 talk 13:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- ... that Two Roosters Ice Cream became locally popular after offering odd flavors such as "grilled cheese" and "pizza"? (Source)
- ALT1: ... that Two Roosters Ice Cream began business out of a turquoise and white travel trailer-turned ice cream truck? (Source)
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Molly Burman
Johnson524 15:19, 24 May 2024 (UTC).
- I'll review this. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
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: Looks good. Nice work. @Johnson524: I wonder though whether the section titled "Criticism and awards" is appropriate since everything mentioned there seems to be positive. Not someone required to be changed for this to be approved, though. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Done @BeanieFan11: I appreciate the feedback and have updated the page, cheers! Johnson524 11:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
GA Review[edit]
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Two Roosters Ice Cream/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Johnson524 (talk · contribs) 13:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: TrademarkedTWOrantula (talk · contribs) 12:32, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Sweet! (gonna claim this review before others do, hehe) TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 12:32, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
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. | |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | |
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | |
![]() |
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). | |
![]() |
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. | |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | |
![]() |
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. | |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. |
- Good article nominees
- Good article nominees on review
- B-Class Food and drink articles
- Low-importance Food and drink articles
- WikiProject Food and drink articles
- B-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- B-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- B-Class North Carolina articles
- Low-importance North Carolina articles
- WikiProject North Carolina articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- Wikipedia Did you know articles