Talk:Seductive details/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 20:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll be happy to take this review. JAG UAR   20:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguations: none found

Linkrot: none found.

Checking against GA criteria

 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * "are by definition: (1) interesting and (2) not directed toward" - listing points in the lead sounds informal
 * "Recently, there have been many criticisms of this theory" - vague
 * Two paragraphs in the The research section are unsourced
 * "Because adults, on average, having a higher working memory capacity than children, adults are less affected by seductive details than children" - repetition of "adults"
 * "When information is made easier to comprehend, material is processed less deeply, thus leading to poorer acquisition of information" - needs a citation
 * References could be split into two columns
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * References check out OK, reliable sources, no evidence of OR
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Neutral
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Stable, no edit warring
 * 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):
 * No images used
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Other than those minor points I couldn't find anything worthy of putting this on hold, so I'll pass it now. This article meets the GA criteria. Well done! JAG UAR   20:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)