Talk:Sesame allergy/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Nolabob (talk · contribs) 10:26, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I have volunteered to review this article and hope to have the review complete within a week, per GA review guidelines. I will use the table below for the review process and will update the table as the review progresses. From my first read of the article, I have a generally positive initial impression. The article will likely benefit from some copyediting, but I anticipate this to be a minor matter. Nolabob (talk) 10:26, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@User:David notMD I appreciate your prompt resolution of the item in the table below about the "citation needed" tag. Nolabob (talk) 20:58, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@User:David notMD, you state in the revised infobox that the specialty is emergency medicine. Wouldn't it also be allergy & immunology? This is a specialty in the world of medicine. Thanks in advance for the clarification. Nolabob (talk) 12:09, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The section allergic response starts off with a description of three mechanisms. Then two paragraphs later there is a list of types of hypersensitivities. This initially was a bit confusing. I clarified this with a wording change. However, I ask the nominator to verify that I did not unintentionally introduce an inaccuracy. Copyediting is now complete. Reply This actually needed much more work. The Wikilink hypersensitivity reaction does describe four types of hypersensitivities, but II-IV are not relevant to food allergy in general nor sesame allergy specifically (nor was the ref). The remaining paragraph content was adequately covered in the next paragraph, including the refs. My decision was to delete the paragraph entirely. David notMD (talk) 13:34, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The article follows a layout used in other articles on food allergies, and these seem appropriate. The article contains an infobox (as it should). However, the information given in the infobox is too sparse. Infoboxes are supposed to give the reader key facts at a glance. I urge the nominator to more fully populate the infobox. Reply: Infobox replaced by copying the Infobox from Peanut allergy and then replacing all peanut-specific references with sesame-specific references. David notMD (talk) 11:51, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	The second to the last paragraph in the section "Allergic response" has a "citation needed" tag. I ask the nominator to find a suitable reference to resolve this. Otherwise the list of supporting citations appears suitable. REPLY: The sentence has been removed for lack of suitable references. Occupational allergic reactions have been confirmed for workers in the fish and shellfish industries, with exposure through cuts and abrasions on skin, but no literature was found for people who work with sesame seed flour. David notMD (talk) 17:56, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	I conducted a spot check of the citations. These are from reliable sources and support the points made in the article quite well. The citations are among the most impressive features of this article. Reply: In process of addressing queries, I have added a few references, and in the Regulation of labeling subsection, removed text and refs that were not germane to sesame. David notMD (talk) 13:49, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
	2c. it contains no original research.	I see no evidence for original research in the article.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	I have run Earwig's Copyvio Detector which indicated no problems.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The introductory section states that symptom onset is hours to days, whereas the second section states symptom onset is second to hours. I ask the nominator to resolve what seems to be an inconsistency. Reply: This has been resolved with a better ref. "Seconds" is wrong. As that was copied over - with the ref - from other food allergy articles, fixing in all places. IgE-mediated reactions, which can be as severe as anaphylaxis, take place within minutes to hours. Non-IgE reactions take place within hours to days. David notMD (talk) 12:55, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The section entitled "Ingredients intentionally added (U.S.)" as it stands is confusing. The first paragraph relates to general aspects of FALCPA without specific mention of sesame. Then the second paragraph is about the FASTER Act. It does relate to sesame but does it relate to FALCPA? Then the third paragraph is about FALCPA again but without mention of sesame. I ask the nominator to tighten up this section so that it has better focus on relevance to sesame. Reply: Two paragraphs (and six refs) that were about FALCPA in general but not sesame labeling specifically have been removed. In the last paragraph of the article, the second sentence and the fourth sentence do not seem relevant. Am I missing something? Reply: In last paragraph of article, sentences and refs not relevant to sesame allergy have been removed, and a better ref added for Japan labeling David notMD (talk) 13:59, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The viewpoint is neutral.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	The history of the article's edits indicates that the article is stable.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	The current version of the article has four images, all of which are public domain from the Wikimedia Commons.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Under "Regulation of labeling", the image is not specific to sesame allergies. I ask the nominator to check to see if a public domain image of a warning label for sesame allergies is available. If not, then I'm fine with using this image as a "settle-for", but one specific to sesame allergies would be preferred. With only four images in the current version of the article and considering that articles are supposed to be well-illustrated, there should be at least one more image in the article. The Wikipedia essay Make technical articles understandable encourages use of images to help with technical matters (such as immunological responses). One possibility could be an image that shows the immunological cascade that results from sesame allergy. Another possibility could be one related to the specific allergens in sesame oil. If such images are hard to come by, then the nominator could use one that shows signs and symptoms of anaphylaxis, such images being available on the Commons. But I am open to other ideas on improving the illustrations in the article. Reply: I could not find a public domain image specific to sesame. I expect that once the US requirement is activated (1/1/23) the US government will post image examples that will be useable. I added images of an Epipen and a body diagram illustrating symptoms of anaphylaxis. David notMD (talk) 13:13, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
	7. Overall assessment.	The article now appears to be in full compliance with GA criteria.