Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

Jump to content

Talk:Delayed gratification/GA2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Deferred gratification/GA2)
Latest comment: 13 years ago by CabbageX in topic GA Review

GA Review

[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: CabbageX (talk · contribs) 21:08, 6 December 2012 (UTC) Initiated review on 7/12/2012. CabbageX (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

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):
    The lead section represents a good overview of the article. The language is objective, and hedges where necessary.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    The references used in this article represent a comprehensive overview of the topic, and are mostly from peer-reviewed publications. However, the Psychoanalytic drives and impulses requires references to support the statements.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    This article appears to provide a broad view of the topic, with necessary amount of detail.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    The tone is neutral, and in some sections, both sides of an argument are represented fairly.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. 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):
    The second image does not have a copyright tag.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    The previous reviewer failed the nomination for lack of a lead section, issues with references, and problems with the writing. This submission has mostly fixed those problems. The submission is on hold, pending a second opinion from the original reviewer, and an improvement for the two issues mentioned above.

CabbageX (talk) 00:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)Reply