Talk:Realistic conflict theory/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
Read well, but "which include, incompatible" - is the comma necessary there? Same for "concluded that, contempt". "When a group have a notion" - shouldn't it be "has"? This sentence also may be missing the word "this". "Thus being, group-based threat" - another weird comma, sentence reads bad, please rewrite. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Some minor issues: 1) needs more ilinks, some key terms like social status in lead are not linked. Please go over the article and add more ilinks. 2) WP:LEAD recommends that lead contains no citations and no information not covered in the article; I'd like to see the lead rewritten to meet those recommendations. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:
Refs are good.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
One cite missing - for the end of second para in "Implications for diversity and integration" section. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

C. No original research:
All major content referenced. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
Minor issues: 1) Robbers cave study - please add a year of the experiment. 2) John Duckitt - should be linked or explained why his name is important enough to be in text without a link. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

B. Focused:
On topic. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Neutral. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Stable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
No images, but the subject is not easily illustrated. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Not applicable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Overall: Pretty close to GA, but few issues listed above need addressing. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pass or Fail:

Reviewer: Piotrus (talk · contribs) 13:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This was for a school project, so the odds of the comments being addressed are basically zip, and this should be failed as a result. Wizardman 17:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought so. Although I don't think I wasted my time here, hopefully one day my review will be useful to a real editor. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA failed, as it is obvious nobody gives a damn about it after the class has ended. Sigh. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]