Talk:Paratha/GA1

GA review

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

Nominator: Vigilantcosmicpenguin (talk · contribs) 05:12, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Magnesium Cube (talk · contribs) 00:41, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I'll be doing the GA review for Paratha. Expect it to be done by tomorrow. Nice work you've done!

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Broad and focused in specific sections, neutral, and stable. Prose and grammar are good, and so is the MoS. Good images. Unlikely copyvio, good references and sources, no OR.

I'll passCongrats!

• @Magnesium Cube: Hi, thanks for reviewing. Right now, this review seems incomplete; you have not written anything to justify why you think this article meets the criteria. In particular, you must at least include a spot-check of sources that you have checked to ensure that there is no plagiarism or unverified information. You should do this before passing the article as a GA. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 16:40, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

I did a spot-check; I just forgot to include it in the review. I'll add it. MagnesiumCube (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Citations 1, 25, 36, 45, 65, 90, 133, and 175 spot-check:

1 ✓

25 ✓ (Took a long time for me to access this)

36 ✓

45 ✓ (I was originally going to question the reference, but glossed over the boiled rice portion (Nice research)) -- "The median portion sizes of boiled rice and plain paratha were 140g and 60g, respectively"

65 ✓

90 ✓ (You may want to specify Jamaica in the article)

133 ✓

175 ✓ (The source itself seems a bit biased, but due to your use of only the distribution, it passes)

As for writing, MoS, neutrality, and stability, it's all good - I've read the article three times and nothing really stands out to me. Earwig's Copyvio Detector only shows 16.7% similarity (dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225798), which is unlikely to be framed as a violation. MagnesiumCube (talk) 17:25, 31 May 2026 (UTC)