Wikipedia:Peer review/Strong reciprocity/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I am hoping to eventually apply this article for featured article status, so any feedback/suggestions to that point is much appreciated.
Thank you, Ethulin (talk) 17:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- A couple of thoughts, not a full peer review by any means:
- The automated peer reviewer found some potential problems (not sure if anything can be done about the lack of images, though).
- You might want to go to the WikiProjects that the page is part of and ask them for an assessment with comments on what should be improved. Once they say it's at least class B, then nominate it for a Good Article review.
- Allens (talk | contribs) 00:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments. I bet this is obvious, so sorry for asking) but how do I see the results of the automatic peer reviewer? Thanks!
- Ethulin (talk) 05:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- See where it says "automated tips" in the box to the right? Click on that. Quite welcome, and no need to apologize! Allens (talk | contribs) 09:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Comments
- Lead could be longer, I'd suggest two paras per WP:LEAD. It should summarise the article.
- Robert Boyd and Turkana are dab links.
- First sentence of lead has about 65 words in it. In one sentence. Too much! Split perhaps into three.
- "One game used to measure levels of cooperation is through the dictator game." don't repeat game here, perhaps "One method to measure..."...
- Shouldn't "nash equilibrium" (a) be explained and (b) be Nash?
- And don't over link it.
- "is the public goods game. In a public goods game" repetitive, dull prose.
- "to a common pool. The common pool is then" ditto.
- Try to avoid single-sentence paragraphs.
- Don't see the point of a "See also" that doesn't exist.