Talk:Transactive memory/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 17:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC) I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 17:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of March 22, 2013, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:

Writing is pretty good, but I suggest having previously uninvolved editors go through it for copyediting, first to start out if you know of anyone yourself who can do this, ask them.
Ask at WP:GOCE at the requests page, this might not get done immediately, but that's okay, even just if a request is put in for the future.
Ask at talk pages of any relevant WikiProjects, for example Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology.

2. Factually accurate?:

Problems here. The references used look good, but for uniformity and standardization I would strongly recommend formatting those citations using cite templates at page WP:CIT.
Cites footnoted at ends of sentences seem to disappear later on in the same paragraphs, even if those cites are actually used for that information. Please re-add the cites at the end of any sentences or at the very least any paragraphs of which they were used for that info. This might not be a problem right now, but years from now if other people add unsourced info later on, it would be very hard to distinguish from the sourced info that just doesn't have a citation at the end of the sentence, you see.
For this process described above, I suggest using Harvard Citation style, for example see models at The General in His Labyrinth and Mario Vargas Llosa.

3. Broad in coverage?:

Some short paragraphs throughout.
Small subsections at Transactive processes for the development of transactive memory systems.
Small subsections at Indicators of transactive memory.
Not the best conclusion wrapping up style at Extensions to other domains.
Could these all be expanded upon a bit more? Or perhaps if not, some paragraphs merged so that we don't have these one-sentence-long or two-sentence-long paragraphs?

4. Neutral point of view?: No issues here, seems neutrally worded throughout.

5. Article stability? Upon inspection of talk page and article edit history, article appears to be stable.

6. Images?: No images used, so passes here at the moment. Any chance for addition of some relevant free-use images?

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — Cirt (talk) 04:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Not GA at this time

Unfortunately the above review was not addressed. The article is not GA quality at this time. — Cirt (talk) 17:05, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]