Talk:Realistic conflict theory/GA1

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

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * Read well, but "which include, incompatible" - is the comma necessary there? Same for "concluded that, contempt". "When a group have a notion" - shouldn't it be "has"? This sentence also may be missing the word "this". "Thus being, group-based threat" - another weird comma, sentence reads bad, please rewrite. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 13:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * Some minor issues: 1) needs more ilinks, some key terms like social status in lead are not linked. Please go over the article and add more ilinks. 2) WP:LEAD recommends that lead contains no citations and no information not covered in the article; I'd like to see the lead rewritten to meet those recommendations. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 13:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * Refs are good.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 13:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
 * One cite missing - for the end of second para in "Implications for diversity and integration" section. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 13:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * C. No original research:
 * All major content referenced. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 13:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * Minor issues: 1) Robbers cave study - please add a year of the experiment. 2) John Duckitt - should be linked or explained why his name is important enough to be in text without a link. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 13:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * B. Focused:
 * On topic. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 13:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Neutral. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 13:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * Stable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 13:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: {{GAList/check|{y}}
 * No images, but the subject is not easily illustrated. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 13:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * Not applicable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 13:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall: Pretty close to GA, but few issues listed above need addressing. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 13:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Pass or Fail:

Reviewer: Piotrus (talk · contribs) 13:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This was for a school project, so the odds of the comments being addressed are basically zip, and this should be failed as a result. Wizardman  17:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought so. Although I don't think I wasted my time here, hopefully one day my review will be useful to a real editor. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 20:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * GA failed, as it is obvious nobody gives a damn about it after the class has ended. Sigh. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 13:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)