Talk:Reputation system/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hello. I'm going to have to fail this article's GA nomination, mainly due to the lack of in-line references. Although there is a list of references at the end of the article, there are no references in the text that show where certain opinions and facts were drawn from. Other problems include:
- The lead should be a summary of the entire article, and should not include information that is not repeated (and referenced) in the body of the article.
- The "Types of reputation systems" section needs to be expanded. Delve further into the differences between the various types, and do a compare and contrast between them. Why do companies choose to use one type over another?
- Who is Howard Rheingold and why is his opinion so important that he gets an entire paragraph devoted to it in an article that's only 9 paragraphs long?
- Lists are discouraged. Try turning the list in the "Other examples of practical applications" section into prose that, again, delves deeper into these applications.
- Is a Sybil attack the only type of attack that can be made on one of these systems?
- The first external link (Reputations systems) deadlinks.
- All of the references need more info. If they are journals, they need the publication in which they appeared. If they are books, they need ISBN numbers. Acronyms (IPTPS, ICDM, etc) need to be spelled out.
This article needs some siginificant work on referencing and expansion before it is of GA status. It is a good beginning, but just that, a beginning. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 18:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)