Jump to content

Talk:Realistic conflict theory/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  2. 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    C. No original research:
    All major content referenced. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. 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)[reply]
    B. Focused:
    On topic. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    Neutral. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
    Stable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  7. 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)[reply]
    Pass or Fail:


Reviewer: Piotrus (talk · contribs) 13:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]