Talk:Meta-emotion/GA1

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

Reviewer: LauraHale (talk · contribs) 22:04, 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) 22:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Citations and verifiability
An article at the time of nomination should be "Factually accurate and verifiable". This article has several uncited paragraphs. These need to be addressed before nominating again. When addressing this, please review WP:MEDRS as this article is covered by these guidelines.

Some of the information in the article is hard to verify as the citations do not provide enough information. Others suggest WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDMOS are not complied with, especially in what appears to be primary source research cited that is over 10 years old.

Formatting
I do not think the article complies with WP:MEDMOS.

Overall
I do not think this article was ready for nominating. Please do not be discouraged. Work through GA criteria and the comments above. Then submit the article for Peer Review and then submit again. It will take a lot of work but the topis is very important and it awesome that some one wants to work on it. --LauraHale (talk) 22:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)