Talk:Shellfish allergy

Article history

This article was created by copying all of Fish allergy, then removing all content and refs specific to fish allergy and adding content and refs specific to shellfish allergy. Attribution for the Fish allergy content is in the initial Edit summary, and here, on the Talk page. I am the editor who had created Fish allergy, and then later applied for and achieved Good Article status. To further document history of the development of content for Shellfish allergy, the draft for Fish allergy was itself created by copying Egg allergy verbatim, with references, and then removing all egg-specific content and references. The Edit summary for Fish allergy and Talk page for same acknowledge origin of content from Egg allergy. Egg allergy is a Good Article, raised to that status by me, November 2017. That article was created in 2006. It was approximately 13,000 bytes and 17 references when the GA review started, enlarged to 40,000 bytes and 56 references at time GA approved. At the time Fish allergy was created, the majority of the content in the source Egg allergy article had been written by me, but some predates my involvement. David notMD (talk) 12:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Future GA nomination

I intend to nominate this for Good Article after allowing it to exist for ~ four months, to see if it is stable after having been created in late December 2020. David notMD (talk) 17:47, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Ga nominating 18 April 2021. David notMD (talk) 00:34, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: CommanderWaterford (talk · contribs) 16:21, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

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): ✓ Pass b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): ✓ Pass

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): ✓ Pass b (citations to reliable sources): ✓ Pass c (OR): ✓ Pass d (copyvio and plagiarism): ✓ Pass

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): ✓ Pass b (focused): ✓ Pass

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias: ✓ Pass

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.: ✓ Pass

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): ✓ Pass b (appropriate use with suitable captions): ✓ Pass

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: ✓ Pass

   Comment: Currently put on hold, discussion took place on my talk page with the nominator, further need to solve a few more citations needed (templated inside the article), expect to continue this week CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:16, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

All 'citations needed' resolved by use of existing refs. Ref list check found two "dead" refs. One deleted, as other refs covered the content, and the other replaced by a newer version of the same FDA document. David notMD (talk) 14:55, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Regulations section refs checked. Added text and ref for regulations in Japan. David notMD (talk) 16:15, 3 May 2021 (UTC)