Talk:Adobo (Filipino dish)/GA1

GA review

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

Nominator: AdobongPogi (talk · contribs) 11:12, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Petsquirrel (talk · contribs) 11:58, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

starting this today :)

Criteria	Sub criteria	Result	Comment
1. Well written	a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct		Very readable, and enjoyable to read! I learned a lot, and I thought in general the prose was informative and consistent. There's a couple of smaller edits that I might also try and make but will record here for posterity. unless I'm mistaken, the sentence that starts "However, the concept of cooking adobo" doesn't contradict the one before it, and would fit better in the preceding paragraph as an assertion that the cooking technique long predated Spanish colonisation. It might also be mentioning at this point that *adobo* already had a meaning in spanish, I wasn't aware of this until later in the article and was only familiar with Filipino adobo. there's a bit of a repetition of "vinegar and garlic" in the 'description' section, I think this part could do with a bit of a deduplication though it's mostly really good. Similarly, the paragraph on 'variants' might be better off in the variants section the text in the infobox "only coating on the chicken" is a bit opaque and also misleading given there are so many non-chicken variants of the dish perhaps not necessary, but a very small clarifier on how the -ng suffix is applied in tagalog (e.g as I understand, adobong is used when an adjective is applied to the word, with adobo when no other aspects are present)
	b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation		Mostly pretty good and few complaints. One thing I'd note is that the Variants section could do with a bit more description in the middle -- the start and finish are good and descriptive, but the middle section (on offal, and on ingredients like snake) feels like more of a list of random one-offs. I also wondered if a mention of / disambiguation with Spanish adobo would be relevant in the lead section, as I'd not encountered it before and it would make the History section much more understandable. even something along the lines of "while the name adobo was coined by spanish colonisers after the spanish word for marinade, the family of dishes that came to be known as adobo are indigenous to the islands"
2. Verifiable with no original research	a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline		references are correctly formatted on the page and appear in the correct place
	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)
	c. it contains no original research
	d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism
3. 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)
4. Neutral
5. Stable
6. Illustrated where appropriate	a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content
	b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions