Talk:Thermal imaging camera/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up within a couple of hours. Dana boomer (talk) 22:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • It is recommended that you avoid words that can date quickly, such as the use of "recent" in the last sentence of the lead. Could you reword this sentence?

   • Done. Jclemens (talk) 05:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

   • There are quite a few short paragraphs in the article. Paragraphs of one or two sentences should be expanded if possible, or combined with other paragraphs.

   • Done. Added some more research while I was at it. Jclemens (talk) 05:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • You shouldn't mix the citation templates with the cite xyz templates. They should all be either one or the other. At the moment, your access date formats are showing up two different ways, which I think may be a symptom of using the two different families of reference template.

   • Done. Jclemens (talk) 05:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

   • Current ref #12 (eMediaMillWorks) goes to the log-in page for the EBSCO database. So do all of the other articles you have linked to the EBSCO database, as well as the articles from the ProQuest database. My suggestion would be to link to another version of the article if it's available outside of a database, and if not, just cite the article as if you found it in a print magazine.

   • Tagged as subscription required. I'll go through later and see if I can find free equivalents to this access, but I suspect most of it will not be available. Jclemens (talk) 05:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

   • Current ref 15 (Kemah Tx Fire Dept) needs an access date

   • Fixed. Jclemens (talk) 05:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

   • Current ref 16 (Michael book) needs a publisher, and should have the author listed last name first as the other references do.

   • Fixed. Note that the author's name is J. Michael Lloyd, so it was listed properly. Jclemens (talk) 05:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

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:

There are just a few issues, mainly with references, so I am placing the article on hold to allow you time to address my concerns. Overall, this is a very nice article, and it shouldn't take much work to tweak it up to GA status. If you have any questions, drop me a note here on the review page or on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 23:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

In response to your question on my talk page...yes, I guess it would be fine to include a "(subscription needed)" or something next to the EBSCO and ProQuest articles, rather than removing the urls. However, if there is any way to link to a version that is not in a database, it would be preferable. Dana boomer (talk) 23:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, let me know if this is enough, and, if not, which areas you'd like me to revisit for additional attention. Jclemens (talk) 05:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Everything looks good, so I am passing the article to GA status. My final comment would be that for additional article improvement, you should probably cite the last couple of sentences in the second paragraph of the Construction section, as well as the last couple of sentences at the end of the Usage section. Nice work, and thanks for the quick response. Dana boomer (talk) 14:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)