Talk:Norman E. Rosenthal

Norman E. Rosenthal has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 22, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

photo[edit]

I put the photo back because the permissions were changed by the copyright holder on Wikimedia. Lalulorlor (talk) 19:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Info box[edit]

Needs some tune up. Help! :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the bot got it! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Norman E. Rosenthal/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 21:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found

Linkrot: ~~one found and tagged.[1] Jezhotwells (talk)~~

Checking against GA criteria[edit]

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
In 1984, Rosenthal pioneered seasonal affective disorder, coined the term SAD, and began studying the use of light therapy as a treatment. this does not read well, perhaps "In 1984, Rosenthal pioneered research into seasonal affective disorder, coined the term SAD, and began studying the use of light therapy as a treatment.

~~The lead does not fully summarise the article, please read and apply WP:LEAD.~~
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Sources appear reliable, all significant statements are cited, no evidence of WP:OR.

Ref #8 is a dead link.

It would be good to use citation templates to display full details of citations.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Good coverage
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
~~Is there any criticism of his works? This seems to concentrate just on the positives.~~
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Stable
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):
One image used, licensed and captioned.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
On hold for seven days for the above concerns to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick response. I am happy to pass this as a good article. Congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 16:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your initial evaluation and suggestions. Today I have:

Rewrote awkward sentence you cited above.
Removed dead link and obsolete source which was only a supportive, self published citation anyway.
Expanded and improved the lead.
Standardized all citations following the order set out in the citation template
Added criticism of his research on SAD. I checked every source listed in the article and this was the only criticism I could find -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]