Jump to content

Talk:Norman E. Rosenthal/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 21:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found

Linkrot: one found and tagged.[1] Jezhotwells (talk)

Checking against GA criteria

[edit]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    In 1984, Rosenthal pioneered seasonal affective disorder, coined the term SAD, and began studying the use of light therapy as a treatment. this does not read well, perhaps "In 1984, Rosenthal pioneered research into seasonal affective disorder, coined the term SAD, and began studying the use of light therapy as a treatment.
    The lead does not fully summarise the article, please read and apply WP:LEAD.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Sources appear reliable, all significant statements are cited, no evidence of WP:OR.
    Ref #8 is a dead link.
    It would be good to use citation templates to display full details of citations.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Good coverage
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    Is there any criticism of his works? This seems to concentrate just on the positives.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    Stable
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    One image used, licensed and captioned.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    On hold for seven days for the above concerns to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your quick response. I am happy to pass this as a good article. Congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 16:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your initial evaluation and suggestions. Today I have:

  • Rewrote awkward sentence you cited above.
  • Removed dead link and obsolete source which was only a supportive, self published citation anyway.
  • Expanded and improved the lead.
  • Standardized all citations following the order set out in the citation template
  • Added criticism of his research on SAD. I checked every source listed in the article and this was the only criticism I could find --KeithbobTalk 16:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]