Talk:The Last Theorem/GA1

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

Reviewer: Rcej (Robert) - talk 06:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello... I will be reviewing the article :) The way I like to review is to focus on a small or specific problem area, resolve it, then move on to another area. That is sort of easier and less overwhelming than schlepping through everything at once. heh. Anyway, we'll start in a day or so; I want to do a more in-depth read thru, and I've been known to do a very minor ce here or there if I see a blip somewhere. Rcej (Robert) - talk 06:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok; first up. We need to diminish the sub-section Fermat's Last Theorem to just a mention of the theorem and its function/history, the majority of the paragraph describing how specifically Fermat's theorem was considered in the writing/thematics/conceptualization of The Last Theorem (How is the actual equation relevant in this regard?). You have this as a sub-section of Background; and we see that in the story, although Ranjit garners fame, acclaim, etc. after his discovery of a proof to Fermat's theorem; the actual theorem serves no real role in the story. I assume that is why Fermat's theorem has more to do with Background than Plot in the article? The article prose is spot-on :) But the sub-section Fermat's Last Theorem reads too irrelevantly weighty within its association with the novel, as written.-- Rcej (Robert) - talk 05:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello Robert, thank you for taking time to review my nomination. Regarding the Fermat's Last Theorem sub-section: The reason I included it is to give some background to the theorem that the title of the book (The Last Theorem) refers to. You're right, the theorem does not contribute much to the story plot, and that is a criticism raised by some of the reviewers, but attention is drawn to it by the title of the book. I'd be happy to de-emphasise it as you suggest, but I thought I'd just run this by you first. --Bruce1eetalk 07:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * De-emphasize the mathematical stuff as you think best, and it may be preferable to relocate that sub-section into the Plot section; then, maybe use the literary critic's review to ref a mention of how Fermat's theorem was not really meaningful to the plot. Your writing discretion on that, absolutely :) Rcej (Robert) - talk 02:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I've merged the Fermat's Last Theorem sub-section into the first paragraph of the Plot, and I've left out all the "mathematical stuff" – if the reader wants more details, they just have to go to Fermat's Last Theorem. --Bruce1eetalk 05:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Very fine!! One more thing, and we're about there; in Background, this sentence regarding Clarke reads a little too assertive:

"He also predicted the communications satellite in 1945."

Let's ease her out of 4th gear, to about 3rd. heh :) Rcej (Robert) - talk 06:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've removed that statement; you're right, it is a bit too assertive. --Bruce1eetalk 06:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool. And, with that we are finished and have passed! I've white gloved the ga stuff... all clean; and in the general reading, there's really nothing else to tinker with :) Kudos, and it was nice working with you! Rcej (Robert) - talk 06:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * ... and thank you for the GA and the compliments. It was nice working with you too! All the best. --Bruce1eetalk 07:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Results of review

 * GA review (see here for criteria)

The article The Last Theorem passes this review, and has been upgraded to good article status. The article is found by the reviewing editor to be deserving of good article status based on the following criteria:
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): 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, 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: