I've upgraded the package to version 1.1.1 (same URLs) and corrected the spelling errors. Not sure about the URL. Man page is still missing. The non-executable-script is irrelevant.

1. did you rename upstream tarball ? if so, please do not.
I suggest you advise upstream to generate more downstream suitable tarball (<name>-<version>) using more efficient compression schemes like bz2 or xz.
2. upstream states that you should not use pystatgrab < 0.5, please fix the requirements accordingly
3. use %global instead of hardcoding upstream tarball name (nico-largo), upstream hash (09cc4df), that's a bad habit since they will likely change in the future
4. use singular instead of plural in both Summary and description since glances provide only one tool (you should tell upstream too)
5. i suggest that you rename the command-line to glances, less confusing for users than glances.py.
6. about the " non-executable-script" rpmlint error, i suggest that yo u remove the shebang on /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/glances/glances.py, for instance:
sed -i '1d' %{python_sitelib}/%{name}/%{name}.py
7. i suggest that you ask upstream to provide a man page, that's a good pratice.

Fix points 1 to 6, and we'll start formal review

Upstream have now fixed almost all the points with version 1.1.3.

1. Now upstream tarball has a good name
2. Spec now includes version of pystatgrab
3. githash is not needed anymore
4. Summary and description have been fixed
5. Command has been renamed from glances.py to glances
6. Shebang has been removed from this non executable script
7. Man page is on its way

SPEC URL: http://www.linuxed.net/~madko/fedora/glances.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.linuxed.net/~madko/fedora/glances-1.1.3-1.fc16.src.rpm

Thank you for the review Haïkel

Package Review
==============

Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated



==== Generic ====
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
     least one supported architecture.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
     that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[-]: MUST Buildroot is not present
     Note: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
     Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
     Note: defattr(....) present in %files section. This is OK if packaging
     for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[-]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
     Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5
[x]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
     license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
     license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[x]: MUST Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generates any conflict.
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[-]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.

rpmlint glances-1.1.3-1.fc17.src.rpm

glances.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libstatgrab -> Stalingrad
glances.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US statgrab -> stat grab, stat-grab, statecraft
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.


rpmlint glances-1.1.3-1.fc17.noarch.rpm

glances.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libstatgrab -> Stalingrad
glances.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US statgrab -> stat grab, stat-grab, statecraft
glances.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary glances
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.

Nothing relevan

[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
     provided in the spec URL.
/home/builder/760045/glances-1.1.3.tar.gz :
  MD5SUM this package     : 14b42ed91444ad4eefe702fa67838223
  MD5SUM upstream package : 14b42ed91444ad4eefe702fa67838223

[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
     %{name}.spec.
[-]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[-]: SHOULD If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
     separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to
     include it.
[x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
     /usr/sbin.
[x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
     --requires).
[x]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
     upstream.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[-]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.

Issues:
rpmlint output is OK, general & python packaging guidelines are respected (plus EPEL exceptions since you told me that you will maintain EPEL5/6 branches).
I hereby approve glances for inclusion into Fedora Packages Collection. 

PS: Though it's not mandatory, macros style variables should be preferred over shell style ones for new spec files.
PPS: report generated using fedora-review (awesome & handy tool !)

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: glances
Short Description: CLI curses based monitoring tool
Owners: madko
Branches: f15 f16 f17 epel5 epel6
InitialCC: 

I will need pystatgrab in epel as a dependancy

Git done (by process-git-requests).

@Edouard: could you close this ticket ? Glances has been in Fedora for over a month (and even had updates during that time).
It is a good practice that when you submit your first bodhi request that you add the review ticket so it gets closed when it reaches stable repositories.

Well I was waiting for bug #782723 (missing dependancy in epel6 for glances). Should I still close this ticket?

Since EPEL6 was requested in initial scm request, it should be ok to wait.
As pystatgrab is not in EPEL5/6, you might get better results in requesting ACLs (try to ping ray -rishi- on irc)

According package review process, you're also allowed to close it as long as it was built on Fedora release branches.

Thank you Haïkel, I have now taken ownership of pystatgrab. I've just asked for epel6 branch for pystatgrab (cf bug #459010). 

I'm closing this bug now that pystatgrab is on its way to epel6.

Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: glances
New Branches: epel7
Owners: madko

Hi, please add a new branch for epel7

Git done (by process-git-requests).