Talk:Impulsivity/GA1

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

Reviewer: Piotrus (talk · contribs) 11:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


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


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * This article is far from beautiful prose. To point out a few problems: 1) The lead starts with numerous quotations, none attributed in text, all discouraged per WP:MOSQUOTE. 2) There are too many lists, discouraged per WP:MOSLIST. 3) Some sections are very short, and have very long headings (ex. "Go/No-go and Stop-signal reaction time test"). It seems reasonable to reduce a number of sections, and merge/expand some of the shortest paras. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:51, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) While it is not required, I'd strongly recommend the use of cite templates. No, on second thought I am afraid I'll have to insist; there are so many complex citations here the use of cite templates would speed up the citation review significantly. 2) Some books need page numbers; I've tagged a few. 3) There are many unreferenced claims in the article, I've tagged most, but not all. Considering the complexity of this article, I've serious doubts that end of para cites are enough; I'd like to see all sentences referenced in longer paras that already have 2+ refs. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:51, 8 June 2013 (UTC)  i've done a lot of reformatting of the references (see diff). hopefully, this moves the article in the right direction.  —Chris Capoccia  T&#8260;C 21:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * As far as a non-expert like me can tell. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:51, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Could use more images - diagrams, or such - but it is not necessary. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:51, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * This is on hold pending replies to the concerns raised above. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:51, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Failed: no activity to address any issues raised for over a week. (Nominator was notified on his/her talk page, still inactive). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This is on hold pending replies to the concerns raised above. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:51, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Failed: no activity to address any issues raised for over a week. (Nominator was notified on his/her talk page, still inactive). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)