Talk:Consumption of Tide Pods/GA2

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

Reviewer: Etriusus (talk · contribs) 02:24, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Alright, back into the swing of things. I greatly appreciate the speed at which you resolved these issues. You know the drill so let's get started. Etrius ( Us) 02:24, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Sourcing

 * Per last GAR, mashable was a source of question. I see that it is not sponsored content, therefore I agree that it'll be acceptable for its use here. Thanks for cutting down on its use.
 * All sources archived, no dead links noted.
 * I like what you did with adding the onion and archived message board to the See Also section
 * Random spot-checks find nothing concerning.
 * Painter, Kim (November 10, 2014). "Report: Laundry 'pods' sent 1 child a day to hospitals". USA Today. Archived from the original on February 2, 2018. Retrieved January 5, 2018.  -Dup ref.
 * ✅ fixed Soulbust (talk) 03:53, 15 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Stop Eating Tide Pods, archived from the original on May 25, 2021, retrieved May 25, 2021. Incomplete citation to Youtube. Just cut it since this is a primary source/example and the surrounding secondary sources support this.
 * ✅ thought I had already removed it honestly. completely agree it's unnecessary for the article. Soulbust (talk) 03:52, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Stability

 * Nothing notable

Images

 * All checks out

Copy-vios

 * Only quotes, and company names.

Prose

 * Add mention of the 'Tide Pod Challenge' by name in the lead.
 * ✅ Soulbust (talk) 04:25, 15 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Rename the 'heath risk' section to 'Early History and Health Risks' or 'History of Health Risks". Something to that effect.
 * ✅ Also added a subsection to highlight the changes in packaging standards. Additionally, I reorganized the Health risks section to follow more of a logical time flow. Not sure why it was kinda mish-mashed all over the place in terms of chronology. Unsure if I wrote it like that originally or if it got disorganized over time. In any case, it flows better now I think. Soulbust (talk) 04:03, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Comment: Just a handful of edits then the page is good to go, excellent work on bringing the page up to snuff. While outside of the scope of this GA review, adding a dedicated section to the physiological impacts of Tide Pod consumption would be a welcome touch. Etrius ( Us) 02:24, 15 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I can see that as helping for sure.
 * This is for my personal reference when I come back to the article in a bit. Additionally, if any of these sources seem like they wouldn't belong in the physiological impacts section, let me know.
 * The Bevers source from WP, already included in article
 * This Cosmopolitan source:
 * This CDC source:
 * This Hamilton Health Sciences source:
 * EMRA source:
 * J Med Toxicol source: already included
 * Fortune source:
 * Thank you, Soulbust (talk) 04:56, 15 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Alright, I added a physiological effects/toxicology section and cleaned up the article a bit more beyond that. Reddit thread and CollegeHumor video added to External links which I think should be done, and to be exclusively composed of the more "Internet lore" type of sources that are referenced by media outlets and such. If there are any more concerns please let me know and I'll address them. Thank you again. Soulbust (talk) 06:24, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Soulbust, excellent work. At this time, the page is good to go. I made a few edits and moved a section around, please double check my edits. Congrats on another GA, I know it was hard fought. Etrius ( Us) 01:59, 17 September 2022 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Etrius ( Us) 02:00, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Prose is fine; article broadly meets standards of MOS.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * Sources are reliable, and appropriate for this type of article; several were checked against the statements they supported with no issues found.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Article has broad coverage with appropriate level of details.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Yes
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Yes
 * 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):
 * All images have licenses making them available for use in this article, they are used appropriately, and have useful captions.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: