Talk:Salmonella-in-eggs controversy

B Class article?

Hello. I worked on this article in July and August, and I think it reaches the standards of a B-Class article. I realise that the article is not particularly long, and so it will never reach GA standard or higher, but for what it is I consider it to be the best it can be. I will go through the 6 criteria and why I think this article has met them.

1. The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. Any format of inline citation is acceptable: the use of <ref> tags and citation templates such as {{cite web}} is optional.

At the time of writing, this article has 12 references. Each statement has a citation to back it up. There is no unreferenced material and as all facts are verified, I believe this need is met.

2. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing.

Yes, there are no major omissions. Some of the smaller details are glossed over or not mentioned, but can be added later; besides, the criteria states that this is not a deal breaker. The topic is reasonable covered, giving the background, statement, reactions and aftermath. For this reason, I believe this need is met.

3. The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind.

As mentioned above, there is a defined structure. I have looked at other similar scandals (Partygate, Officegate) and they too have Background sections, with Partygate having dates in subsections (similar to this article's December 3 section) and a Reactions section. These sections can be easily navigated and are distinct from one another.

4. The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it does not need to be "brilliant". The Manual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously.

I have, to the best of my ability, tried to follow the MoS. If there are any issues they can be fixed in a minor edit. Granted, the prose in the first sentence is a little clunky; however, I had to include the year somehow to assure the reader that they were at the correct article. Other than that, I believe the prose is passable, and again can be easily corrected or tweaked in one or two quick edits. I can see no major grammatical errors.

5. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams, an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content.

There is an image in the article, and pictures of Lion Marks or eggs or salmonella can also be added if needs be. I could not find a suitable infobox (Partygate and Officegate are also absent of them), but at a push I suppose infobox event could be used. Again, these are not mandatory.

6. The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. Although Wikipedia is more than just a general encyclopedia, the article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible.

Yes, if someone were to research this I think they would understand the article. The worst technical term included is Salmonella enteriditis, and even then, the vast majority of people would know that that is meant to be a subspecies. It is concise and understandable.

The general definition of a B-Class article is "the article is mostly complete and without major problems but requires some further work to reach good article standards." I think this is very true of this article and deserves an upgrade from C-Class, which means that "the article is substantial but is still missing important content or contains much irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant problems or require substantial cleanup." I do not believe that the article has any significant problems or requires much cleanup, and does not contain irrelevancies or fails to include material that is needed.

If somebody wants to review this, please get back to me. I know I could technically review this myself, but I am not impartial and would prefer somebody with fresh eyes to make the assessment. If you can, it is very much appreciated.

Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:35, 5 November 2022 (UTC)