Svoboda | Graniru | BBC Russia | Golosameriki | Facebook
Jump to content

Talk:Shellfish allergy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:WikiProject iconMedicine Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconFood and drink 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.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Food and Drink task list:
To edit this page, select here

Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink:
Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages.
WikiProject iconArticles for creation
WikiProject iconThis article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.
Note icon
This article was accepted on 27 December 2020 by reviewer Materialscientist (talk · contribs).

Article history[edit]

This article was created by copying all of Fish allergy, then removing all content and refs specific to fish allergy and adding content and refs specific to shellfish allergy. Attribution for the Fish allergy content is in the initial Edit summary, and here, on the Talk page. I am the editor who had created Fish allergy, and then later applied for and achieved Good Article status. To further document history of the development of content for Shellfish allergy, the draft for Fish allergy was itself created by copying Egg allergy verbatim, with references, and then removing all egg-specific content and references. The Edit summary for Fish allergy and Talk page for same acknowledge origin of content from Egg allergy. Egg allergy is a Good Article, raised to that status by me, November 2017. That article was created in 2006. It was approximately 13,000 bytes and 17 references when the GA review started, enlarged to 40,000 bytes and 56 references at time GA approved. At the time Fish allergy was created, the majority of the content in the source Egg allergy article had been written by me, but some predates my involvement. David notMD (talk) 12:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Future GA nomination[edit]

I intend to nominate this for Good Article after allowing it to exist for ~ four months, to see if it is stable after having been created in late December 2020. David notMD (talk) 17:47, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ga nominating 18 April 2021. David notMD (talk) 00:34, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

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

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)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  Pass b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  Pass
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section):  Pass b (citations to reliable sources):  Pass c (OR):  Pass d (copyvio and plagiarism):  Pass
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):  Pass b (focused):  Pass
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  Pass
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  Pass
  6. 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
  7. 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]