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

Nominator: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 11:45, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 12:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

Not sure what this fine article is doing as a mere GAN: to my mind it has FAC written all over it. But either at GA or FA level it needs to be in a single variety of English, and at present it is a mish-mash of BrE and AmE: fibres and behaviours -v- fiber and behavior, and so on. At first glance I think AmE spelling predominates, but whether you go nap on that or on BrE (and I don't imagine anyone will quibble about WP:ENGVAR whichever you go for) you really ought to stick with one or the other. Over to you for now. I hardly think we need put the review formally on hold (unless you'd prefer it.) Must go: I feel a bacon butty coming on. Tim riley talk 12:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Tim! There seems to be a tradition of AmE in the article, so I've fixed a few fibres and behaviours. Odors, flavors, and colors all seem to be in order. Added an AmE tag. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:57, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, but you might tidy up carcass-v-carcase, and maybe shove a z into "publicised". Tim riley talk 13:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Done! Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:50, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria In my judgment this article would be a worthy candidate for WP:FAC.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Well referenced

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Well referenced

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: alt text would be good but is not compulsory

   Well illustrated

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Well illustrated

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

A shoo-in for GA. On to FAC I hope. Tim riley talk 13:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh. Maybe the toddler needs a helping hand with that particular step! Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Round objects, dear boy! Tim riley talk 18:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

" B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: "

The health effects section lacks reliable sources. Important cohort studies that account for confounding factors have been ignored. This article must be demoted to bad article because it has no proper sources for the Health Effect section.

Itisme3248 (talk) 18:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]