Talk:Boomerang effect (psychology)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) 05:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll take this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Quick comment from AmericanLemming
Hello. I don't mean to usurp ChrisGualtieri's role as the main reviewer for this article, but one thing that immediately pops out at me is that the lead is not an adequate summary of the article. I would suggest expanding it to be a least one full paragraph, but no more than two full paragraphs, based on the article's length. Just trying to give you something to do while the reviewer completes his review. AmericanLemming (talk) 05:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I got my review to post up tomorrow on my paper, but that is one of issues. I got a more complete review, but no worries. I don't worry about the comments, they always help. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Review
Good Article Checklist
 * Well-written -the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
 * Verifiable with no original research: it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; and it contains no original research.
 * Broad in its coverage: it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
 * Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without 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.
 * Illustrated, if possible, by images: images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Comments: The article suffers from prose issues and psychological terms that come up as jargon to the reader, that makes the content impenetrable to the layman reader. Though a problem with word choice, grammar and descriptions of the material are sorely in need of a thorough copyedit before tackling the content itself. The writing is sufficiently troublesome to merit its pause. The explanations and theories are in need of inline citations as well, as they are questionable or contentious to readers. This review can be continued after these initial issues are resolved. I'll place it on hold for now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Disambig links: No issues
 * Reference check: No issues
 * If no comments are made within 48 hours, I will fail this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)