Talk:Performance psychology/GA1

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

Reviewer: MTHarden (talk) 14:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination
This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of July 22, 2011, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?: Failed
 * 2. Factually accurate?: Failed
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: Failed
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: Failed
 * 5. Article stability? Pass.
 * 6. Images?: Failed

There is some good writing on this page, but it seems like much of it was lifted directly from internet sources and unfortunately this makes the article read like an advertisement. This lack of neutrality hurts the credibility of the accuracy and thoroughness of the information presented. And while there is an image it has little to do with the article and is presented without context. In short, because of the above problems, in addition to the typographical, spelling, and formatting errors on the page this article doesn't qualify as a good article. If major revisions were made and a significant change to the tone of information presented then perhaps at a much later date this article could be re-evaluated.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— MTHarden (talk) 14:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)