Talk:Earl Mindell/GA1

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

Failed "good article" nomination
This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of August 19, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?: Weak pass

Correctly spelled; all grammar seems fine; complies with the core MOS guidelines

One aspect I do not like is the selected bibliography. Having his works in a table gives them a lot of prominence which perhaps distracts from the article. I think there are too many listed here, and it would keep the article more balanced if they were in a list, cited in the standard way.


 * 2. Factually accurate?: Pass

References are good, inline citations are generally used well. (One exception is discussed in point 4.)
 * Note that some of the refs lack publisher info. cite web is useful (but not a requirement), see also WP:CITE. —Giggy 19:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 3. Broad in coverage?: Weak

I agree with the previous GA reviewer in that there is some material missing from the article and it may not satisfy the general reader's curiosity. More details on his background and how he got into the field of health and nutrition are lacking.


 * 4. Neutral point of view?: Fail

Most of the article is well balanced. However the section entitled CBC program lets the article down in this respect. This paragraph is badly sourced (for example, the first six sentences do not have any inline citations) and somewhat biased in its tone (e.g. referring to Mindell's claim as orginal research, the "clearly" in "..clearing contrary to fact.." is unnecessary, etc.) This section is given undue weight as most of it is based on the events of a single television interview. I would seriously consider deleting the entire section.


 * 5. Article stability? Pass

No problems here.


 * 6. Images?: Fail

The picture seems to be missing a fair-use rationale.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far. MSGJ (talk) 06:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)