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

Reviewer: Coemgenus (talk · contribs) 11:51, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments

I'll get started on this one today. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:51, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a well-written article, not much to quibble with.

Lede

• "Star Breweries also produces THB Fresh, a shandy (locally called panaché), with less than 1% alcohol, THB Special (6.2% alcohol), and THB Lite, a low alcohol beer (1%)." This sentence has some confusing commas. I'd suggest using semi-colons or more parentheses.

• Rephrased. - Lemurbaby (talk) 06:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Production

• "...a type of mushroom is added..." That's an interesting detail. Do you know which kind of mushroom?

• Unfortunately, the source material doesn't specify. I'd like to know too! - Lemurbaby (talk) 06:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• That's too bad. It will have to remain a mystery! --Coemgenus (talk) 12:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Images

• File:THB.JPG concerns me. The license says it's the uploader's own work, but it looks a lot like the company's advertising. Do you know any more about it?

• Agreed, I'm doubtful it's original work. I've replaced the image. - Lemurbaby (talk) 06:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• New one looks fine. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

• Footnotes 20 and 22 are deadlinks.

• Yes, it doesn't appear there are any active versions of these pages anymore, though they're available cached. Otherwise I would provide updated links. - Lemurbaby (talk) 06:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The best thing to do in that case is to change the "url=" field to "archive-url=" and replaced the dead link with the address for the archived version. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, I just added them for you. Passed! --Coemgenus (talk) 13:43, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]