Talk:Harvest (Numbers)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 18:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
In the lead, you might want to say where the show airs. Same section, "After airing on January 27, 2006, the episode received a mixed reception", remove "a" as it doesn't make sense to include. In the Origin section, "In developing their algorithm, Gentry, an United States Naval Academy applied mathematician" ---> "In developing their algorithm, Gentry, a United States Naval Academy applied mathematician". In the Reception section, shouldn't "Hollywood Health and Society" be "Hollywood, Health & Society"? Is that all the reviews available for the episode?
Half-check. Is there a way that CBS can be included in the lead?
Check.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
United States should not be linked as it is a common term. "NY Daily News" ---> "New York Daily News" and "The Boston Globe" ---> "The Boston Globe", should be formatted that way, and should be italicized, as they are newspaper publications.
Check.
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. 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):

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Not that much to do! If the concerns above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

-- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 18:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One minor thing remaining. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I came a bit to strong, I'm just doing my job as a reviewer. Anyways, thank you to SciGal for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]