Talk:Co-rumination/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Puffin (talk · contribs) 19:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Before you nominate an article for GA status, you need to make sure the matinence tags have been addresses. The article still has few links to other articles. The article needs to be copy edited. The grammar and wording is not very good. You can go to WP:GOCE for this. Do not wikilink common words such as gender. The article needs to be clarified. For example, "inconsistent with male norms" What do you mean by "norms?"
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Words to watch: Avoid the word "significant." You use this word 3 times in the article. It is a peacock term. What makes the things so significant? "may very well be a result of constantly going over problems" The word "very" and the whole statement is too vague. It is unsourced too. Please clarify what this means.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	You repeat the same reference several times. You need to use {{cite book}} FN 2: You need to provide page references for multi page PDFs. FN 6: Needs page numbers. FN 8: Needs page numbers. FN 13 and 17: Exactly the same, please use {{cite web}} for this. All book references need to be formatted as such, with {{cite book}} and all web references need to be formatted as such, with {{cite web}}. Please read WP:FN. You should not be putting references directly into the text. For example, you say "Research on co-rumination in the workplace (Haggard et al., 2011)" Inline citations go directly after the punctuation and not before it.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Why are there inline citations above the references section? What statements do these sources support? Please, transfer them to the relavent part of the article. "Girls are more likely than boys to co-ruminate with their close friends, and co-rumination increases with age in children. Female adolescents are more likely to co-ruminate ruminate than younger girls, because their social worlds become increasingly complex and stressful." Unsourced, please provide a citation. "Young women tend to turn to each other for social support, especially during the tumultuous years of adolescence." Unsourced, please provide a citation. "Since co-rumination involves repeatedly going over problems again and again this obviously can lead to depression and anxiety. Catastrophizing, when one takes small possibilities and blows them out of proportion into something negative, is common in depression and anxiety and may very well be a result of constantly going over problems that may not be as bad as they seem." Unsourced, please provide a citation. The "Effects in Daily Life" section is completely unsourced, please insert inline citations. "men showed vast improvement in anxiety and worrying symptoms by focusing attention on how to handle a negative event "refocus on planning" whereas for women, accepting a negative event/emotion and re-framing it in a positive light was associated with decreased levels of worry. In other words, some of the cognitive emotion regulation strategies that work for men do not necessarily work for women and vice versa. Patients are encouraged to talk about their problems with friends and family members, but need to focus on a solution instead of focusing on the exact problem." Unsourced, please provide a citation. The "Other research" section is completely unsourced, please insert inline citations.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Yes, sources have not been cited to some sections indicating that primary sources have been used.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The whole "Other research" section is unsourced, and it does not fairly give weight to each gender, and so, it is not neutral. Where there are no citations in some sections, the sections are also not neutral. This needs to be fixed.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	There could possibly be a picture of a patient recieving this therapy.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	No images.
	7. Overall assessment.	This article is not currently ready for good article status, so I will not be listing it at this time. Please consider the points raised above and after working on it, take it to WP:Peer review and then please renominate at WP:GAN. There are many major problems with this article. I am afraid this article is a long way off of GA status. Puffin Let's talk! 20:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

This article does not fail criteria 6a/b. Wikipedia:Good article criteria states "The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement." Therefore, a lack of an image is not a reason to fail criteria 6. maclean (talk) 01:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)