Talk:Vitamin B6/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Psiĥedelisto (talk · contribs) 21:01, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

 Passed—This well written article was exhaustively corrected by David notMD in the previous GA review, above, point by point. David notMD decided to request that users not GA review this article until the 26^th; I found such request impractical for two reasons: ① I planned to pass the article after reading it; ② it's deep in the GAN backlog. Therefore, I accepted it today, the 23^rd. Some problems with the article remain, but as even featured articles may have problems, much less good articles, that's no reason for an overall fail. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 22:41, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   I noted that we were quoting an official English translation of the Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare of Japan which was Engrish-lite. I switched this out for a proper translation and properly cited the original Japanese terms and quotes being referred to, thus resolving the issue I found.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   I am failing the article on this criteria despite giving it an overall pass because I don't believe that the current images are enough to pass exactly the "relevant" criterion. B₆ injections are commonly given in hospitals (usually labeled pyridoxine HCL), and B6 supplements are often seen. I believe that images of these should be included somewhere, as well as the freebase form if possible. Seems to just be a white powder, but still.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: