Talk:Reincarnation research/GA1

GA Review
This review is transcluded from Talk:Reincarnation research/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Failed "good article" nomination
This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of July 2, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?: Fail


 * Multiple single-sentence paragraphs.
 * Section starting "Besides, an Anecdotal Case is not the same thing that Case Study" is incoherent


 * 2. Factually accurate?: Fail


 * Many uncited statements. Examples include the statement that Stevenson's research on bithmarks "furnishes graphic evidence" which is cited to the original publication by Stevenson, so is ether his opinion on his research, in which case it should be attributed to him, or an uncited opinion. Discussion of advantages and disadvantages of hypnotic regression is entirely uncited.
 * None of the citations used in the section on Peter Ramster are reliable sources. Section starting "Besides, an Anecdotal Case is not the same thing that Case Study..." is uncited.


 * 3. Broad in coverage?: Fail


 * The article lead states that the field of reincarnation research is divided into researchers and therapists, but only discusses researchers.


 * 4. Neutral point of view?: Fail


 * Separation of critical views about the evidence on this topic into a separate section at the end is very poor practice.
 * If Peter Ramster's work has been largely ignored, including it in the article is giving it undue weight.


 * 5. Article stability? Pass


 * 6. Images?: None

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. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)