Talk:Samosa

GA review

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

Nominator: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 17:00, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Chilicave (talk · contribs) 03:20, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to review this article!

Many thanks. Please add any comments after the table for ease of reply. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:04, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Summary table

[edit]
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): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
    a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Comments

[edit]