Talk:Empathic accuracy/GA1

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

Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) 05:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll take this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

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 has several issues. The lead does not summarize the contents of the article. The article has a minor issues with prose and a lack of inline citations that result in some appearances of OR. These issues are likely easily rectified and I must commend all the work done on breaking down the complex terminology that comes with the subject matter. The "layman's terms" are not easy, but they are the primary demographic that will read the article. A few specific things to consider fixing are: Just do a quick copy edit and I think with the fixes it should pass without issue. Just make sure to fix the WP:WORDS issues. Going to place this on hold for fixes. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Disambig links:No issues
 * Reference check: No issues
 * ". But, according to Rogers, self-actualization could not be accomplished until the need for positive regard, positive self-regard, and having a self-concept were gained, so having empathy as one of the main guidelines in therapy helps to move the client towards self-actualization. Empathy in Rogers's client-centered therapy is to better understand the client and his or her issues."
 * "The Rogerian view is based on Carl Roger's Client-Centered Therapy, and uses three criteria to measure empathic accuracy. These criteria include having repeated assessments of the perceiver's empathic accuracy, such as testing how accurate the perceiver can "read" other's thoughts and feelings. After the initial testing, the psychologist then allows the perceiver to generate their own inferences of the specific content provided by the psychologist. Lastly, the psychologist needs to operationally define empathic accuracy to fully understand and identify exactly what he or she is looking for within the perceiver." - cites
 * " Theory theory is more cognitive in that we find meaning in other’s behaviors and contextual cues, and put these together to construct an idea of what that person’s internal mental state is like."
 * "theory theory has basically been proven a straw man," - Explain better.
 * "When considering the importance of the mirror system in empathic accuracy this deficit makes sense, as people who have difficulty recognizing their own emotions likely would show less brain activation in those regions, which are also used in recognizing others' emotions." seems like OR.

Comment
ChrisGualtieri, this has been on hold for over a month and a half, and the nominator hasn't edited since November 26 of last year. It's time to close this; you could make the fixes yourself and pass it, or close it as unsuccessful as it is. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I honestly hate to fail this... and as of late most of my GA reviews have all been failures. But more than enough time has passed. I am incapable of getting through this "theory theory" and other terms and the whole lack of argument on why "theory theory" is "proven" to be a strawman without evidence is not proper writing and might equal a NPOV issue. Sorry, but this is way overdue for a fail. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)