Talk:Imagined contact hypothesis/GA1

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

Reviewer: Guerillero (talk · contribs) 22:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I have placed this on hold pending some changes -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  00:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Response to GA Review
Thank you for reviewing this article in regards to the GA status. I have completed a number of changes regarding your comments. If you can please take another look that would be much appreciated. --npalt123 ; My Talk 22:43, 9 February 2015 PST
 * Here are some of the issues I still see
 * Citation 8 (Allport, G. W. (1954). The Nature of Prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books) still needs a page number.
 * Since you are no longer in class, can I suggest the Cite journal series of templates or sfn? Because here are all of the nit-picky things that I can see, right now, with your manual use of APA formatting
 * You inconstantly use p, pp, and just page numbers.
 * Is there a reason for the change between initials in some citations and the full names in other citations for the name person?
 * You aren't consistent with the colon between the volume/issue and the page number.
 * Some of your volumes are bolded and some are in italics
 * Your lead needs another sentence or two because of the length of the article.
 * Those are the last errors I see -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  00:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Guerillero, it's been over a month since you posted the above, and Npalt123 has not edited on Wikipedia since the day prior to your post. I think you need to decide whether to close the nomination, and at this point it clearly fails to meet the standards of WP:LEAD in a number of ways, including the most basic: Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. The origin of the theory, for example, is only mentioned in the lead, and the odd use of "[stigmatized]" there, the only place in the article the word is used, is definitely not GA caliber. The article still has the "lead too short" template on it, and the lead is heavily cited: since the lead is supposed to be summarizing the rest of the article, those facts should be cited when it appears in the rest of the article, and only if controversial or a quote should they be cited in the lead. I should probably note that the "what is a good article" page states, regarding references: Using consistent formatting or including every element of the bibliographic material is not required, although, in practice, enough information must be supplied that the reviewer is able to identify the source, so while you can suggest those citation changes, most of them (except the missing page number) are not things that should prevent a GA from being listed. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:42, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Decline -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  01:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)