Talk:Clam dip/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: AHeneen (talk · contribs) 22:48, 25 April 2016 (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.	Well written
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	No issues here. Lead does not include anything about the history, but I don't think that's a major problem because the article is fairly short, the history section immediately follows the lead section, and the history section is mainly trivia that would be hard to incorporate into the lead.
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.	Pending
	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).	No issues here
	2c. it contains no original research.	Well sourced and no apparent OR
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No apparent copyvio/plagiarism issues.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The article sufficiently addresses the main topics. The history section is rather short, but I realize that this is a topic on which there's not a lot of sources to document the history of it.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No issues with this.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	I don't know if it is even possible for an article such as this to be NPOV. Perhaps if half of it was some rant about causing cancer or there was some conspiracy by the products creators? Anyways, there's nothing overtly non-neutral in this article.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	There have been a lot of edits to this page within the past few days. Obviously, to bring this article to GA status. There were many copyedits, but no back-and-forth changes (eg. edit wars) to the article content. Therefore, this article is sufficiently stable for the purpose of meeting the GA criteria.
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.	No apparent copyright issues. The source ULR for the second image is a redirect to a main page of that website. The website does not seem suspicious, but I will point out that the photo at the original source is reversed left-right (the photo on Commons has been flipped to appear correctly). This is suspicious, but I did a reverse image search on Google and there are no suspicious results to suggest that this photo is a copyright violation or copyfraud.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images are relevant with appropriate captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Short, but decent article. No reasons not to pass.