Talk:Structuration theory/GA1

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

Reviewer: Meclee (talk · contribs) 16:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Place on hold. Supplied initial copy edit. However, several direct quotations appear in the article, which are in need of page numbers added to the citation. Meclee (talk) 16:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Support: Removing hold as article has been revised to address issues. Will wait another 7 days for any additional comments before assigning 'GA' status. Changed WikiProject Sociology assessment to GA-class. Meclee (talk) 23:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, there is something weird here. Where is the review? And Meclee, are you the nominator? If so, you cannot be the reviewer. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 18:45, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I am not the nominator; the article was nominated by User:Mjscheer, as instructed for a student project. I should have made it more clear that, with the exception of the page numbers for quotes as noted above, I found the article passes Good_article_criteria.  The page number issue having been addressed by User:Mjscheer, I added my support for GA status.  Meclee (talk) 19:08, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * This article is filled concepts that are unfamiliar to the general reader and are not explained . The lede is not understandable to the general reader and is filled with jargon and technical concepts.
 * The section: Criticisms and additions to Giddens's structuration theory degenerates into a series of list
 * The article is confusing. It needs to be simplified and rendered into language the general reader can understand, with adequate explanations of jargon and links to explanatory terms. Wikipedia is not for academic papers. Below is the template for the GA criteria. Please evaluate this article using them. Thanks!MathewTownsend (talk) 22:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Personally I found the lead readable, but I am a grad student in sociology, and already familiar with Giddens. How an average high school student would deal with it... I am afraid you are right that they would not be able to understand much from it. The lead would benefit from expansion with much of it explained in a more simple language that a lay person, without any social science background, would understand. PS. One more comment: "John B. Thompson" section should be renamed to something else, it is a bit jarring in the article to have sections named after content, and then one suddenly named after a person. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me  02:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

GA Review form
GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:
 * B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:


 * Mindful of the difficulty of this topic (for truly convoluted language, read Giddens in the original) and previous comments regarding the density of the language, after several passes by various editors to revise language, I find the article to be "reasonably well written". Having said that, some of the explanation of Gidden's theory in the lede might be better moved to later in the article, with a more simplified introduction to the topic. Meclee (talk) 01:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Provides references to all sources:
 * B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * C. No original research:


 * With the addition of page numbers for quotations, I find the article to be factual accurate and verifiable. Meclee (talk) 01:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Main aspects are addressed:
 * B. Remains focused:
 * B. Remains focused:
 * B. Remains focused:


 * The main aspects of structuration theory appear to be well addressed. Some of the presented criticisms might be further developed; but the focus in that area is adequate for a GA class article.


 * 1) Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:


 * The article gives both Giddens' own claims about his work and representative critiques of his work, so meets NPOV. Meclee (talk) 01:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * No edit wars, etc:


 * Fortunately, no edit wars, here. Meclee (talk) 01:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * No appropriate images available. Meclee (talk) 01:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No appropriate images available. Meclee (talk) 01:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No appropriate images available. Meclee (talk) 01:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass - with further lede editing mentioned above. Meclee (talk) 01:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Pass - revisions made; listed as GA. Meclee (talk) 22:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Pass - revisions made; listed as GA. Meclee (talk) 22:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)