Talk:Dodo bird verdict/GA1

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

Reviewer: LauraHale (talk · contribs) 21:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Good article criteria
A good article is&mdash;  :
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

:
 * (a) ;
 * (b) ; and
 * (c).

:
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

. . :
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).



A good article is reviewed against these criteria. A copy of this criteria can be found at 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
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.

Formatting
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
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
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)