Talk:Curry/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 08:56, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Velthorian (talk · contribs) 08:27, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I'm used to working with GA reviewers and will respond promptly to any issues. The article is carefully written, structured, and cited to balance historical and geographical context with modern culinary diversity, so I hope you will like it, but I'm happy to discuss and resolve any concerns you may have. I look forward to working with you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My Pleasure, By the way 2 references are dead & I tried replacing them my self but was not successful. They already have a archive.org URL. Regards Velthorion (𑲀𑲰𑱺‎!) 12:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then all that's needed is to update the |url-status=live to =dead. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:32, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did that, there was something to do with the value. Velthorion (𑲀𑲰𑱺‎!) 14:03, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed one and formatted several, which one do you have? Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1 is no.67 and other I'm finding other. I got to know them through the tool Velthorion (𑲀𑲰𑱺‎!) 15:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[67] is fixed already. Tool throws up a lot of smoke and false positives! Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, maybe here too Velthorion (𑲀𑲰𑱺‎!) 16:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the efforts on your part Velthorion (𑲀𑲰𑱺‎!) 16:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pass

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This is a great article & is in good shape

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
The article is well written

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
The sources are sourced properly.Some of them are no. 6, 24, 28, 53, 75, 77, 80 with 67 in above discussion

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
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):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
The article is suitable to be promoted to GA status. Best wishes for further improvements to the article.

Velthorion (𑲀𑲰𑱺‎!) 05:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Velthorian, many thanks, but could you state explicitly that you have carried out spot-checks on the sources used? e.g. you checked [11], [21], and [31] or whatever. This will show other editors that the review was conducted properly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap, ✓ Done Velthorion (𑲀𑲰𑱺‎!) 09:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]