Talk:The Gold-Bug/GA2

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

Hi, due to the unorthodox review that this article received receive the first time around, all the aricle reveiwed by that reviewer (four) are being redone. Because I seemed unfair to put you at the back of the quene I decide to review it now. In general, the article is excellent. Looking through it I find no problems. However, I will give it a closer look, in case you are thinking of FAC, to see if I have any suggestions. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 23:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * I made some copy edits that you are free to revert.


 * Legrand offers to draw a picture of the bug, which he had captured and then allowed another to borrow. - allow another to borrow into the ground, or another to borrow the bug.


 * I'm not totally sure I know what you're saying here but I'll take a look at the wording. Let me know if I'm wrong. --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * he certainly popularized it during his time. (Is the meaning that Defore popularized it?)


 * Actually, that's supposed to point to Poe. --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Poe's character Legrand explains his ability to solve the cipher in a similar manner as Poe does in "A Few Words on Secret Writing".[7] - would it be helpful to explain this "ability to solve the cipher in a similar manner as Poe"?


 * The line actually isn't comparing the ability to solve the cipher, but how it is explained. Any advice on making that clearer? --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Very nice article, well layed out. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 23:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking a look! The other reviewer, I think, will do just fine once he/she gets a little more experience. I've thrown some advice at them either way. And, no worries between you and me - I have a mega amount of respect for you and appreciate your thorough reviews. You definitely catch things that I'd never see! --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, that covers it - unless the "Poe's character Legrand's explanation of his ability to solve the cipher is very like Poe's explanation" is not satisfactory - but you can fix that if it is not. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 01:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

Congratulations! &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 01:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): Well written b (MoS): Follows MoS
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable  c (OR): No OR
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): Sets the context b (focused): Remains focused on subject
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias: NPOV
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:


 * Many thanks!! --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)