Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Psychology/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 23:04, 16 March 2007.

Psychology[edit]

nom by-Nick^talk 03:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - 1. Lead needs to be at least three paragraph long; please refer to WP:LEAD. 2. There should be more inline citations than five. --Crzy cheetah 04:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object, refer to Peer review. Referencing and citation is entirely insufficient (you'd need at least 30-40 citations, probably far more), most sections are far too short and stubby, "See Also" is bloated and contains numerous irrelevant links. I could go on, but these alone are enough for now. —Cuiviénen 16:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object, refer to Peer review. Ditto - has the basis of a good FA but needs refs for each section (which should be fairly easy though time consuming to retrieve), and a good lead. The first sentence is clunky and a largish copyedit is needed. Good luck. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 03:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object, per above, and please submit to a lengthy peer review; several months of work and review are needed to bring this article to GA standard. I suggest a peer review, then apply for WP:GA, then another peer review before re-considering FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong does it not meet the criterion? --Paracit 03:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Umm yes. It fails 2(a) and 1 (c). As it fails these, I have not looked at the prose closely. These should be rectified before a copyedit. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 04:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.