Talk:Shellfish allergy/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: CommanderWaterford (talk · contribs) 16:21, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): ✓ Pass b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): ✓ Pass
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): ✓ Pass b (citations to reliable sources): ✓ Pass c (OR): ✓ Pass d (copyvio and plagiarism): ✓ Pass
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): ✓ Pass b (focused): ✓ Pass
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: ✓ Pass
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: ✓ Pass
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): ✓ Pass b (appropriate use with suitable captions): ✓ Pass
Overall:
Pass/Fail: ✓ Pass

Comment: Currently put on hold, discussion took place on my talk page with the nominator, further need to solve a few more citations needed (templated inside the article), expect to continue this week CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:16, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All 'citations needed' resolved by use of existing refs. Ref list check found two "dead" refs. One deleted, as other refs covered the content, and the other replaced by a newer version of the same FDA document. David notMD (talk) 14:55, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regulations section refs checked. Added text and ref for regulations in Japan. David notMD (talk) 16:15, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]