Talk:Cornelius P. Rhoads/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

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

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

Checklist

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


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Comments

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


 * Early life and education
 * Do we know his parents' names?


 * Puerto Rico
 * 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.


 * Overall
 * 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)
 * Thanks! Did a bit of editing and would appreciate more feedback. Andrevan@ 23:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Scandal
 * It might be good to use the "" template for the letter text. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg DoneAndrevan@ 13:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


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