Talk:The Gold-Bug/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
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. —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. —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. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): Well written b (MoS): Follows MoS

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable c (OR): No OR

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): Sets the context b (focused): Remains focused on subject

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias: NPOV

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Congratulations! —Mattisse (Talk) 01:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

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