Talk:Capri-Sun/GA1

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

Reviewer: Shawn Teller (talk · contribs) 22:54, 19 February 2023 (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.	This is a very well written article, painting a rich tapestry of its subject with profoundly insightful language.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The article fully adheres to MOS, and does so in a very creative way that could be expanded upon to improve other articles as well. The manual of style is followed perfectly. The authors did a great job using the manual of style. Very well done.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Everything is appropriately sourced. The list of resources is sleek and laid out very well. It looks very professional.
	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).	I checked out each and every citation. Excellent choice of sources to cover as complex a topic as Capri-Sun. All are reliable and independent and of the highest quality. It is clear that the most recent editors took painstaking steps to carefully select references from only the most reliable and prestigious sources.
	2c. it contains no original research.	While the subject is clearly well researched by the contributors, it does not have any original research and it doesn’t cite any primary sources.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	I see no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Thanks to this article, I have an in depth understanding of Capri-Sun and now I know that it is a type of juice I can buy at a grocery store. The contributions by the most recent few editors break down numerous sophisticated concepts into a piece that certainly does its subject justice.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	While the authors make it clear that Capri-Sun is brimming with fascinating background trivia, they also do a great job staying focused on the topic of Capri-Sun without going into unnecessary detail that isn’t directly related to Capri-Sun.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Neutrality is maintained wonderfully throughout the article. No issues here.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit warring or other disruption.
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.	Media attribution is appropriate and there are no copyright issues.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Media is not only relevant to Capri-Sun, but also serves as an invaluable aid to learning and understanding. The captions are expertly written.
	7. Overall assessment.	Exceeds GA criteria, possibly FA material.

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.