Talk:Dodo bird verdict/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: LauraHale (talk · contribs) 21:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Good article criteria[edit]
A good article is—
- Well-written:
- (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
- (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
- Verifiable with no original research:
- (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
- (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2] and
- (c) it contains no original research.
- Broad in its coverage:
- (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
- (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
- Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
- Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. [4]
- Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: [5]
- (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
- (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]
A good article is reviewed against these criteria. A copy of this criteria can be found at Wikipedia:Good article criteria. Please do not be discouraged because of the quickfail. Working on improving the article against this list of criteria will help you better prepare for re-nominating in a few weeks. --LauraHale (talk) 21:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Tags[edit]
This article should not have been nominated with the presence of any tags as they suggest problems, in this case with "Factually accurate and verifiable". These need to be fixed before the article is nominated again.
Citations[edit]
An article at the time of nomination should be "Factually accurate and verifiable". This article has several uncited statements. These need to be addressed before nominating again. When addressing this, please review WP:MEDRS as this article is covered by these guidelines. In other cases, the article is over cited with statements. "The common factors theory states that all therapies in psychology are equally effective because of the common factors they share. The only causal agents in treatment are the common factors and the specific techniques that are unique to treatment strategies are irrelevant" has five sources. "Numerous meta-analyses have shown that CBT yields significant results of effectiveness in treating psychological disorders, most notably, anxiety disorders, however CBT also plays a positive role in treating depression, eating disorders, substance abuse disorders, and obsessive-compulsive disorder." has seven citations. hile those in support of the Dodo Bird Verdict focus on the importance of building a client-therapist relationship, some studies have, “identified a number of other relationship factors that may interfere with or negatively impact therapeutic change, has four and it isn't clear which of these four the quote comes from.
Formatting[edit]
The lead does not adquately summarize the article and I do not think it complies with WP:MEDMOS.--LauraHale (talk) 21:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Essay like[edit]
Statements like this: Perhaps the greatest illustration of the current state of the Dodo Bird Verdict is seen in meta-analyses of Wampold and Barlow and response to it.
That reads like an essay, especially as the whole paragraph is not supported by inline citations.
Summarizing[edit]
I do not feel these can be fixed in a timely manner. I strongly suggest the nominator not me discouraged, work on addressing some of the issues mentioned, then nominate the article for peer review and then resubmit. --LauraHale (talk) 21:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
- ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
- ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
- ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.
- ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
- ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.