Talk:Seductive details/GA1

GA Review

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

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

I'll be happy to take this review. JAGUAR  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

2. 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

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Neutral

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Stable, no edit warring

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):

   No images used

7. 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! JAGUAR  20:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)