Talk:Meat Grinder

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Nominator: AdobongPogi (talk · contribs) 01:17, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Dragonhawk12 (talk · contribs) 06:08, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

@Dragonhawk12 Thanks for taking the time to review this. You may see my revisions. Please ping me if anything is missing or if you notice any issues. AdobongPogi^{masarap 🍛} 00:28, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! There are still issues with the souring. The spot check is below Dragonhawk12 (talk) (Guestbook) (Wikicats) 00:39, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

@Dragonhawk12 I decided to remove source 1 and replace it with source 2. I was unsure how to revise the paragraph based on [1], while source [2] provides Arnon's fellow producer Thawatchai Panpakdee, which I added to the paragraph. The film was produced by Film Guru Company Ltd, with Poj Arnon and Thawatchai Panpakdee serving as producers. AdobongPogi^{masarap 🍛} 01:21, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Everything looks good now. I'll pass the article now. Congrats! Dragonhawk12 (talk) (Guestbook) (Wikicats) 01:26, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear, concise and understandable to an appropriately broad audience, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   See below

   Everything was fixed

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

   All guidelines here are followed.

2. 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:

   Sources are laid out correctly

   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 following links are down:

The following links I can't access, but maybe my computer is just bad:

Everything is  Done by the nom

1. C. It contains no original research:

   Spot check here

   There are still some issues listed above. You may either reply here or on the spot check page.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   highest percentage Earwig gave was a 4.8%. No copyvio here.

2. 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):

   Everything I would want to know about the subject is mentioned.

3. Is it neutral?

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

   Article is neutral

4. Is it stable?

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

   No edit wars present.

5. 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:

   Only image has a valid rational.

6. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   @AdobongPogi: There are still some issues that need to be addressed. Dragonhawk12 (talk) (Guestbook) (Wikicats) 23:07, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello! I'm reviewing this for WP:DCWC. If you have any questions or I biff anything, please tell me!Dragonhawk12 (talk) (Guestbook) (Wikicats) 06:08, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Plot:

• "Human flesh" is wikilinked in the last sentence but "flesh" in the sentence "Fearing the consequences, she preserves the body with herbs and uses the flesh in her noodles." isn't. I don't think flesh is uncommon enough to be wikilinked, so you don't have to link it.
• "Nida briefly escapes but discovers a dead body while trying to flee." is this relevant to the plot?

Production:

• This isn't needed to get the article to GA status, but the list of names (Rattanaballang Tohssawat, Pimchanok Luevisadpaibul, Anuway Niwartwong, Wiradit Srimala, Duangta Tungkamanee, and Jirachaya Jirarachakij) should be alphabetized by last name.

Release:

• "United Kingdom" doesn't have to be Wikilinked.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Meat Grinder caused controversy among noodle shop owners, who objected to its depiction of noodle preparation involving human flesh?

• Source: https://www.timeout.com/movies/meat-grinder-2009-2009?

• • ALT1: ... that the Thai Film and Video Censorship Committee considered Meat Grinder a national security concern because of its portrayal of human flesh being used in noodles and scenes related to the 6 October 1976 massacre?
  • ALT2: ... that Meat Grinder faced censorship concerns in Thailand over its depiction of human flesh being used in noodles and scenes referencing the 6 October 1976 massacre? Source: ALT 1 and 2: https://web.archive.org/web/20240526151907/https://prachatai.com/journal/2021/10/95451
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Quezon (film)

Improved to Good Article status by AdobongPogi (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 7 past nominations.

AdobongPogi^{masarap 🍛} 02:17, 25 July 2026 (UTC).

• The nomination has been made within the time limit. The article is comfortably long enough and high quality with cited inline references. No copyright or neutrality issues detected. The hooks are appearing in the article, verified by the sources, and quite interesting. My personal preference is ALT1.--NØ 12:07, 26 July 2026 (UTC)