Talk:Depressive realism/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Delldot (talk · contribs) 03:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for this contribution to the article. I have read and enjoyed it. I'm not going to promote it to GA status at this time because I think it would require too much work to bring it up to that standard to be done within this review. However I'd love to see continued work go into it and I'd be happy to help in whatever way I'm needed in improving the article at any time in the future, just leave me a message on my talk page.
So here are my main issues with the article on a brief read-through:
- too technical: the language of the article reads more like a professional paper than an encyclopedia article. Please check out the subsection Wikipedia:Technical#Avoid_overly_technical_language in particular to get an idea of what the project aims for. We want to write in plain english, the way you would say it in an informal discussion with an uninformed listener (someone who might need to read an encyclopedia article!). For example, in the statement depressed individuals make more realistic inferences than non-depressed individuals could you replace individuals" with "people" and "inferences" with something like "expectations" or "thoughts" without losing meaning? Another example: depressed patients were shown to be more accurate in their causal attributions of positive and negative social events than non-depressed participants who demonstrated a positive bias. The article is full of examples like this. Please give the whole thing a copy edit to get rid of jargon and technical language where possible.
- Comprehensiveness: the article is very short and I'm fairly sure that a lot more could be said about the phenomenon than is explored here. It could easily double or triple in size without being too long or detailed. Your excellent use of copious references shows that there's plenty of material from which to draw. In particular I'm interested in the teaser in the lead about how this brings up a problem with CBT, could that be expanded upon?
- I wasn't sure whether the studies used people diagnosed with clinical depression or people experiencing a depressed mood at the time. Could this be clarified?
I'd love to see the article expanded and further improved, please let me know if I can help with that effort. Thanks again for the contribution! delldot ∇. 03:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)