Talk:Harvest (Numbers)
 | Harvest (Numbers) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
GA Review
edit- This review is transcluded from Talk:Harvest (Numb3rs)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 18:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
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.
- Half-check. Is there a way that CBS can be included in the lead?
- 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.
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- 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:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- 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):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- 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:
- 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:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- 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!
- Pass or Fail:
-- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 18:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- One minor thing remaining. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- 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)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Harvest (Numbers). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091118213123/http://www.dvdverdict.com/reviews/numb3rsseason2.php to http://www.dvdverdict.com/reviews/numb3rsseason2.php
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.emmys.com/award_history_search?person=&program=&start_year=2006&end_year=2006&network=All&web_category=416&winner=All
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:05, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Harvest (Numbers). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100308050545/http://www.gwumc.edu/sphhs/departments/pch/phcm/casesjournal/volume1/peer-reviewed/cases_1_08.cfm to http://www.gwumc.edu/sphhs/departments/pch/phcm/casesjournal/volume1/peer-reviewed/cases_1_08.cfm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:53, 30 October 2017 (UTC)