Talk:Warm-glow giving/GA1

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

Reviewer: David Fuchs (talk · contribs) 21:08, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

In progress. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 21:08, 20 September 2019 (UTC) Overall while this is a solid start, the article still needs work before it can become GA. An overview of issues:
 * General :
 * I'd say a systemic problem with the article is it reads less like an actual encyclopedia article and more like a presentation (given the apparent origins as a student pieces this is probably unavoidable.) There's a lot of assumed knowledge rather than an overview given to inform readers, and the excessive use of subheadings makes the article read like a powerpoint slide rather than something more cohesive.
 * The article also basically uncritically uses the originating author's framework without contextualizing it or giving indications that it's widely accepted; given the scant "criticism" section at the end of the article, it suggests there are WP:NPOV issues.


 * Prose :
 * The article needs a substantial copyedit, especially to bring it into Manual of style compliance. Some specific details:
 * WP:DASHes (the article uses dashes and hyphens throughout and inconsistently)
 * Inconsistent spacing/missing spacing
 * Date formats
 * Media :
 * Images are appropriately licensed and sourced, but I'm left wondering what the relevance of many of them are. Images like File:Empathy - Design Thinking.png and File:I voted 15016301.png seem barely relevant; I removed the lead section's picture of a candle because it felt much the same.

Given that the GA nominator has not edited in several months and the problems detailed are rather substantial, I am failing the nomination. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 13:13, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * References :
 * There are several areas in the article that have clearly unsourced lines.
 * Given the possible NPOV issues mentioned above, I'm particularly concerned about the lack of secondary sourcing versus WP:PRIMARY sources. There's not a real context about warm glow giving at all because it's only hashing out scientific studies—I'm left wondering what the notability of the term is and if it's had any actual impact or if it's merely theory. There's some information about this (the other applications section touches on this but it's comparatively light versus the sections with long chunks of mathematical models.)