Talk:The 100-Mile Diet/GA1

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

Well written: (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]

Factually accurate and verifiable: (a) it provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout;[2] (b) at minimum, it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons;[2] and (c) it contains no original research.

Broad in its coverage: (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias. Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.[4] Illustrated, if possible, by images:[5] (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

IMO, this article passes all of the requirements above except failing 1b), due to the length of the "content" section. Although a non-fiction book, it has a narrative, therefore the content section should comply with plot word limits imo. It is currently ~840 words, and can easily be shortened - we only need a summary of the overall contents, not so many specifics. An example of a whole unimportant sentence: "In February, Smith visits a group in Mahnomen, Minnesota, who are half way through a year long 250-mile diet." This,can be cut, along with shortening many other sentences. Plot summaries is recomented to be half the current (300-500 words). Also, the disambiguation is VERY long. Could this not direct to an overall disambiguation page for all 3, instead of the 2 diets and their explanation being there?)

If it is shortened to to top end of this limit (500 words), i'll be happy to pass it.

Currently on hold (imagine little pink symbol: here)


 * Thanks for the review. As requested, I reduced the Content section to below 500 words. --maclean 06:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * That was quiick. I've not passed the article - great job!
 * If you have the chance, please consider reviewing another GAN article :-).Yobmod (talk) 09:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)