Talk:Transactive memory/GA1

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

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 17:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I will review this article. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 17:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold
This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of March 22, 2013, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?:


 * 1) Writing is pretty good, but I suggest having previously uninvolved editors go through it for copyediting, first to start out if you know of anyone yourself who can do this, ask them.
 * 2) Ask at WP:GOCE at the requests page, this might not get done immediately, but that's okay, even just if a request is put in for the future.
 * 3) Ask at talk pages of any relevant WikiProjects, for example Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology.
 * 2. Factually accurate?:


 * 1) Problems here. The references used look good, but for uniformity and standardization I would strongly recommend formatting those citations using cite templates at page WP:CIT.
 * 2) Cites footnoted at ends of sentences seem to disappear later on in the same paragraphs, even if those cites are actually used for that information. Please re-add the cites at the end of any sentences or at the very least any paragraphs of which they were used for that info. This might not be a problem right now, but years from now if other people add unsourced info later on, it would be very hard to distinguish from the sourced info that just doesn't have a citation at the end of the sentence, you see.
 * 3) For this process described above, I suggest using Harvard Citation style, for example see models at The General in His Labyrinth and Mario Vargas Llosa.
 * 3. Broad in coverage?:


 * 1) Some short paragraphs throughout.
 * 2) Small subsections at Transactive processes for the development of transactive memory systems.
 * 3) Small subsections at Indicators of transactive memory.
 * 4) Not the best conclusion wrapping up style at Extensions to other domains.
 * 5) Could these all be expanded upon a bit more? Or perhaps if not, some paragraphs merged so that we don't have these one-sentence-long or two-sentence-long paragraphs?
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: No issues here, seems neutrally worded throughout.
 * 5. Article stability? Upon inspection of talk page and article edit history, article appears to be stable.
 * 6. Images?: No images used, so passes here at the moment. Any chance for addition of some relevant free-use images?

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 04:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Update: Not GA at this time

 * Unfortunately the above review was not addressed. The article is not GA quality at this time. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 17:05, 31 March 2013 (UTC)