Talk:Clam dip

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Food and drink (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
 

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging[edit]

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tag these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 10:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Clam dip/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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. all inline 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. No issues here
2c. it contains no original research. Well sourced and no apparent OR
2d. it contains no copyright violations nor 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 fair 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.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Clam dip. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:29, 8 August 2017 (UTC)