Talk:Delayed gratification/GA2

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

Reviewer: CabbageX (talk · contribs) 21:08, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Initiated review on 7/12/2012. CabbageX (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

CabbageX (talk) 00:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * The lead section represents a good overview of the article. The language is objective, and hedges where necessary.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * The references used in this article represent a comprehensive overview of the topic, and are mostly from peer-reviewed publications. However, the Psychoanalytic drives and impulses requires references to support the statements.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * This article appears to provide a broad view of the topic, with necessary amount of detail.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * The tone is neutral, and in some sections, both sides of an argument are represented fairly.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * The second image does not have a copyright tag.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * The previous reviewer failed the nomination for lack of a lead section, issues with references, and problems with the writing. This submission has mostly fixed those problems. The submission is on hold, pending a second opinion from the original reviewer, and an improvement for the two issues mentioned above.
 * The previous reviewer failed the nomination for lack of a lead section, issues with references, and problems with the writing. This submission has mostly fixed those problems. The submission is on hold, pending a second opinion from the original reviewer, and an improvement for the two issues mentioned above.