Talk:Mu wave/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Wilhelmina Will (talk · contribs) 14:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Well-written:

The introduction looks good; it makes for a nice shorter version of the article for those without time to read about the topic in full. (Inserted after) I can say the same for the "History" section; all MOS guidlines appear to be followed here. (Inserted after) Similarly, I see no issues with the writing in "Mu waves and mirror neurons", or its subsection "Mirror neurons and autism". (Inserted after) I do not see any such problems in "Development" or its subsection "Development in individuals with autism", either. (Inserted after) The final content section, "Brain-computer interfaces", also has good prose, without any grammatical issues. Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 11:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct I inserted a few commas where I felt that a sentence would flow better with such an addition, but as I said, there were no distracting grammatical or prose issues.

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation The only list in the article, aside from the "References" section, is the "See also" section, which appears to follow guidelines accordingly. Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 12:09, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Verifiable with no original research:

Nothing in the content appears to have been "left to chance", so to speak; all sections are diversely and frequently cited, the references are all reputable published sources, and a well-arranged list of references is included at the end of the article. Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 12:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

(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

Broad in its coverage:

After having read through the article, I feel that it does cover all necessary aspects of the topic for which reliable information is available. I saw no "trivia" or irrelevant information inserted anywhere in the content, nor did I see any excess detail-issues of any other sort. Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 12:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

The article's content is neutral, not giving weight or implication to any promotion or demotion of any aspect of the topic. Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 12:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

The article has not, prior to this review, been edited in nearly a month, and none of the most recent edits appear to have been any kind of revert, including edit warring. Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 11:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

The two images in this article are from the Wikimedia Commons, with valid licences, so there is no fair-use issue in this article. Both images provide relevant visual information and illustration to the article and are well-captioned. Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 11:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

After reading the article thoroughly, and checking over all aspects of the article in correlation to GA criteria, I'm satisfied that the article meets the criteria, even excelling at some, and is more than ready to be included amongst other "Biology and medicine" GAs. Congratulations! Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 12:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)