Talk:Boost Drinks/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Mark83 (talk · contribs) 17:07, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll review over the next few days. Mark83 (talk) 17:07, 9 January 2022 (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): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Prose is not inspiring, but not 'bad'. A few tweaks needed e.g. on first mention the owners name is more important than his university (swap emphasis). Lead doesn't come close to summarising the article.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * The layout of references is good. But serious concerns about the reliability of the vast majority of the sources - much of which have been written by the company itself (sponsored content).  See summary below.  Very surprised that no attempt has been made to improve this situation since serious concerns were raised at Articles for deletion/Boost Drinks (2nd nomination).
 * Boost Drinks sponsored the Proppa.com Honda team for the 2010 motocross season. - please check the factual accuracy of this as I can't find such a named team (from an admittedly quick search). The source is marketing material written by Boost.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (y):
 * Composition/ingredients? Reference to health concerns of such drinks?
 * I know more facts on this company from reading the sources than I do from reading the article; proof that there's work to do in covering all aspects of the topic. (But noting that a lot of the sources are also questionable!, so WP:RS to find.
 * Gray said in an interview that he wanted to take Boost to independent retailers because it would have been "crazy to challenge the big brands with a me-too product". -- this needs to be explained. Why does that make it not a "me-too product".  And it's in supermarkets now I believe, so what changed?
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Please read Neutral point of view. Undue weight of marketing info.  I'd take out the Afghanistan info, uncertain and feels like a bit of promotional info.  The sourcing concerns are important for this criteria too (biased sources).
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * I can't technically fail the article on this criteria, but I beg you to change the image. I would cringe to see the GA badge above it. i.e. show it in its can?
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * This feels like a rush to GA nomination. Major issue with the reliability of the sourcing, the vast majority of which is sourced from the company (directly or indirectly).  And if this was all purely factual and NPOV that would be something we could discuss, but most of it is purely marketing and POV.  (Examples in table below).  I get that some are from RS and we can debate the merits of those, but unquestionably 15,16 & 17 and the associated text should have been removed when the concerns were raised at AFD at the very least.
 * Working on that will fix 4. NPOV.
 * And have a think about suggestion on broading coverage, i.e. composition and health concerns which contemporary articles have.
 * As noted the fact that I know more about the company from a thorough review of references shows we've missed some content.Mark83 (talk) 01:20, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * As noted the fact that I know more about the company from a thorough review of references shows we've missed some content.Mark83 (talk) 01:20, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Mark83 (talk) 01:20, 10 January 2022 (UTC)