Talk:Object permanence/GA1

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

Reviewer: TamaraHamilton (talk · contribs) 02:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I feel that this is very informative article that deserves Good Article status.
 * I disagree with your conclusion and I am implementing an Individual reassessment per Good article reassessment. This article currently fails Good article criteria 2b " Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article." This article has two types of referencing formats. It also fails Criteria 2a " it provides references to all sources of information". The "References" section is missing information related to "Uzgiris and Hunt" and "Wright". As such, I have delisted the article. If the references are fixed, it can be re-nominated or anyone can appeal my conclusions using a community reassessment at Good article reassessment. maclean (talk) 06:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

This is a very well written article and fits the good article criteria. now that the references have been fixed.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * This article is mostly focused.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * There has been some major editing that has been going on with this page, but I feel that it has improved it enough to be looked at again as a good article.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * There are no pictures on this page, but I feel that there are none that would add to the credibility of the page.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Overall I feel that this a good article and deserves to be recognized as such. I apologize for my first attempt at reviewing this article, but I feel that I have learned a lot through it as it is my first review.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Overall I feel that this a good article and deserves to be recognized as such. I apologize for my first attempt at reviewing this article, but I feel that I have learned a lot through it as it is my first review.