Talk:Transactive memory/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 17:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC) I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 17:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Good article nomination on hold[edit]
This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of March 22, 2013, compares against the six good article criteria:
- 1. Well written?:
- Writing is pretty good, but I suggest having previously uninvolved editors go through it for copyediting, first to start out if you know of anyone yourself who can do this, ask them.
- Ask at WP:GOCE at the requests page, this might not get done immediately, but that's okay, even just if a request is put in for the future.
- Ask at talk pages of any relevant WikiProjects, for example Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology.
- 2. Factually accurate?:
- Problems here. The references used look good, but for uniformity and standardization I would strongly recommend formatting those citations using cite templates at page WP:CIT.
- Cites footnoted at ends of sentences seem to disappear later on in the same paragraphs, even if those cites are actually used for that information. Please re-add the cites at the end of any sentences or at the very least any paragraphs of which they were used for that info. This might not be a problem right now, but years from now if other people add unsourced info later on, it would be very hard to distinguish from the sourced info that just doesn't have a citation at the end of the sentence, you see.
- For this process described above, I suggest using Harvard Citation style, for example see models at The General in His Labyrinth and Mario Vargas Llosa.
- 3. Broad in coverage?:
- Some short paragraphs throughout.
- Small subsections at Transactive processes for the development of transactive memory systems.
- Small subsections at Indicators of transactive memory.
- Not the best conclusion wrapping up style at Extensions to other domains.
- Could these all be expanded upon a bit more? Or perhaps if not, some paragraphs merged so that we don't have these one-sentence-long or two-sentence-long paragraphs?
- 4. Neutral point of view?: No issues here, seems neutrally worded throughout.
- 5. Article stability? Upon inspection of talk page and article edit history, article appears to be stable.
- 6. Images?: No images used, so passes here at the moment. Any chance for addition of some relevant free-use images?
Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — Cirt (talk) 04:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)