Talk:Realistic conflict theory/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- Read well, but "which include, incompatible" - is the comma necessary there? Same for "concluded that, contempt". "When a group have a notion" - shouldn't it be "has"? This sentence also may be missing the word "this". "Thus being, group-based threat" - another weird comma, sentence reads bad, please rewrite. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
- Some minor issues: 1) needs more ilinks, some key terms like social status in lead are not linked. Please go over the article and add more ilinks. 2) WP:LEAD recommends that lead contains no citations and no information not covered in the article; I'd like to see the lead rewritten to meet those recommendations. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- A. Prose quality:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. Has an appropriate reference section:
- Refs are good.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
- One cite missing - for the end of second para in "Implications for diversity and integration" section. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- C. No original research:
- All major content referenced. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- A. Has an appropriate reference section:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- Minor issues: 1) Robbers cave study - please add a year of the experiment. 2) John Duckitt - should be linked or explained why his name is important enough to be in text without a link. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- No images, but the subject is not easily illustrated. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- Not applicable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall: Pretty close to GA, but few issues listed above need addressing. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
Reviewer: Piotrus (talk · contribs) 13:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- This was for a school project, so the odds of the comments being addressed are basically zip, and this should be failed as a result. Wizardman 17:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- I thought so. Although I don't think I wasted my time here, hopefully one day my review will be useful to a real editor. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 20:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- GA failed, as it is obvious nobody gives a damn about it after the class has ended. Sigh. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)