Talk:Wicked problem/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Aircorn (talk · contribs) 23:41, 10 May 2012 (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 am happy with the structure of the article, the lead summarises the article adequately and does a reasonable job at describing the problem of wicked problems. However the prose needs more work. The prose is an issue though. Lists are fine, but sections should not be dominated by them and if they are used they should be introduced better. I think that most of the list would be better presented as prose.The see also list is also too large. I would pare it down to the more essential. Ideally there should be no articles in a see also, it is meant to be a place for link to articles that have not been incorporated into the articles body yet. We are not an academic journal so it is better to use full names where possible instead of "Kevin et.al."

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   References seem fine and they are excellently formatted

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Expand template is a sure sign that this is not broad enough.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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

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

   Not applicable

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Too many lists and not enough prose is the major problem. The also present copyright problems as they are lifted straight out of the sources. Have a go at converting those into prose and expand where needed then renominate.