Talk:Okonomiyaki/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: PinkElixir (talk · contribs) 20:41, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I'll be taking on this review. Kind regards, PinkElixir (talk) 20:41, 2 September 2021 (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.	The prose is clear and concise. I made some minor grammar edits as I was reading through.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead section appropriately summarizes the rest of the article. I might suggest adding some history to the Lead section to strengthen it even further.
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.	All information is properly sourced. Great job finding such a wide array of sources! The references follow MOS:REFERENCES.
	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).	All content is appropriately sourced using appropriate WP:RS.
	2c. it contains no original research.	There is no WP:OR.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	There are no signs of WP:PLAG or WP:CV.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The article focuses on relevant main aspects of the topic, including the dish's history and its variations across Japan. I might suggest adding a "preparation" section to outline how the dish is made. Many food articles on Wikipedia have such a section.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The article stays focused without adding unnecessary detail.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The article follows NPOV.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	There is no history of edit warring or content dispute on the article. On the contrary, the talk page discussion highlights great collaboration amongst multiple editors to improve the quality of this article.
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.	All images fall under the appropriate CC license or are editors' own work.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Photographs used are relevant to the topic. Given the size of the article, perhaps 1 or 2 images can be removed without diminishing the article's quality.
	7. Overall assessment.	Y - this article passes GAN review! Please see my specific comments for some suggestions on further improvement. Otherwise, this is a solid article with valuable information, accurate sources. Great work!  Done