Talk:Cornelius P. Rhoads/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Coemgenus (talk · contribs) 13:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this over the next few days. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

I think the fair use rationale on the Rhodes image is appropriate, and the other pic seems OK, too.

You should make clear that Nieto Editores is a journal (i think that's what it is, based on a Google search). Maybe something like "... the journal Nieto Editores reported..."
"...while referred to as patients, they were primarily clinical subjects. " I'm not sure what the distinction is. It might benefit the reader to explain it.

This is a nice article. You've managed to keep a neutral position on what could be an inflammatory subject. I've enjoyed reading it, and look forward to the resulting of those minor issues remaining.--Coemgenus (talk) 14:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! Did a bit of editing and would appreciate more feedback. Andrevan@ 23:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Those edits all look great. On a second read-through, I've found nothing except the one suggesting below. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It might be good to use the {{blockquote}} template for the letter text. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done'Andrevan'@ 13:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All right: looks like we're good to go. Congratulations! Thanks for writing a good article. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]