Talk:Carolyn Sherif/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 14:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be glad to handle this review. I'll note some initial action points below. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Initial action points

The lead section does not appear to properly summarize the article per WP:LEAD--it should give an overview of Sherif's life, work, and major theories, rather than describing her birth.
The article often slips into a promotional or "peacock" tone (see WP:PEA). Examples include: " She also assumed a leading role in psychology both nationally as well as internationally"; "As both a dedicated researcher and mentor"; "In what is now considered a classic study in social psychology"; " later translated her expertise"; "outlined a seminal theory", etc. Occasionally this is only sourced to Sherif's own work. Please rewrite for more neutral language, sourced to independent secondary sources.
It's disorienting that the article is at "Carolyn Sherif" but calls her "Wood Sherif" throughout; this article might need to be moved.
The article contains loads of praise of Sherif's work, but no criticism. If her work is seminal and preeminent, it seems like some critics would have appeared at some point; if no critics have appeared, I'm a bit skeptical of the claims being advanced here.
Much of the summary of Sherif's work cites Sherif as its main source. Is it possible to find secondary sources describing her work instead? What do outside critics consider to be her most important ideas?
The article has no image, which is another obstacle to its passing GA review. Can one be found?

Thanks for your attention to these! I'll be glad to answer any questions you have about the above comments. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's been a week without action, I'm closing this as not ready for listing. Please feel free to address some or all of the above points and renominate in the future, however. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]