Talk:Maternal deprivation/GA1

GA Review

I plan to review this article. Robert Skyhawk (Talk) 21:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Preliminary Review

I have read this article through once, and before I give a verdict here are some easily fixable flaws I've found. Those marked as "Done" are issues I have fixed myself. Those marked "Not done" are issues which I am not sure how to handle, and would recommend an editor more experienced with the article address.

• WWII and WW II should be World War II, at least at first mention. Also should not be wikilinked more than once.
  •  Done
• Typo at footnote 8a: Missing period.
  •  Done
• History section: "He called this reaction to total deprivation hospitalism." Should be "He called this reaction to total deprivation hospitalism."?
  •  Not done I've punctuated it to make it clear. "Hospitalism" is actually what he called it. Fainites
• Fathers section:
  • "that both parents influence their childs development" Should be "that both parents influence their child's development".
    •  Done
  • "He concluded "For some..." Should be "He concluded, "For some...".
    •  Done
• Maternal deprivation today section:
  • "as outlined by John Bowlby, (Bowlby, 1969, 1973, 1980)," bolded text should be in footnote?

Tricky. Its part of a quote and the dates are important - other wise people mix up maternal deprivation and attachment theory. I'll think how to do it.Fainites ^barley 21:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• • •  Not done I've sort of refined it. What do you think? Fainites ^barley 21:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "east european" Should be "east European" or "East European".
    •  Done

If I were to provide a verdict now, I would rate the article as such: GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Address above problems, but other than that looks good.

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Very few spots where citation would be beneficial, but nothing to ruin a nomination over.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   I am impressed by the amount of work done on this article by one editor, I could barely tell that this was the fact.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   This is not a final review- waiting for above concerns to be addressed.

Since these issues exist, but are by no means major, I will put this nomination on hold until they are fixed. Once this happens, kindly notify me on my talk page and I will happily resume the review. Thanks, Robert Skyhawk (Talk) 23:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. Fainites ^barley 21:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

All done - but I've left the crosses for you to change. Fainites ^barley 21:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Second Review

Thank you very much for correcting these small problems. With those out of the way, it gives me great pleasure to award this article GA status. Congratulations to all involved editors; you have constructed a very informative article about a fascinating aspect of psychology. Well done. I will proceed to add/remove the necessary tags. Thanks, Robert Skyhawk (Talk) 02:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)