Talk:Solomon Asch/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ypnypn (talk · contribs) 00:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   I fixed one spelling and two grammar errors, but everything else is fine. No copyright issues detected.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Everything is sourced, but not plagiarized.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   This passes the criterion for summary style, but barely. The part about his work goes into more detail than necessary.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Nothing controversial to discuss.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No edit wars at all.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   It seems that there weren't a lot of pictures available, but the one used has a valid fair-use rationale.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   This article fulfills the good article criteria, but still needs a lot of work if it is ever to become featured. Here are some comments:

   1. Most importantly, an entire paragraph in the section "Conformity experiments" about the Passover wine is repeated twice.
   2. Two references link to the same New York Times article. They should be combined into one.
   3. The article is unbalanced. Two of the experiments are described in great detail, but the section titled "Unitary and nonunitary associations" consists of one sentence, which is pretty unclear. Since there are four sources, it should be possible to expand the section into at least a full paragraph.
   4. "Selected work" - selected by whom? It's probably best to list of all his works, unless there are too many, in which case the article should be clear as to why some are excluded.
   5. Also, the list should be in chronological order.
   6. The article has very few wikilinks. More are needed.
   7. In the section titled "Order effects on impression formation" it says "The only difference between these sets of words is that the adjectives "intelligent" and "industrious" are placed in different positions in the list." Actually, the entire set is reordered.