Talk:Norman E. Rosenthal

Latest comment: 13 years ago by Jezhotwells in topic GA Review
Good articleNorman E. Rosenthal has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 22, 2011Good article nomineeListed

photo

edit

I put the photo back because the permissions were changed by the copyright holder on Wikimedia. Lalulorlor (talk) 19:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Info box

edit

Needs some tune up. Help!  :-) --KeithbobTalk 21:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Looks like the bot got it! --KeithbobTalk 16:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

GA Review

edit
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Norman E. Rosenthal/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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