Talk:Coping/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: – Quadell ^(talk) 17:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Nominator: User:EYarde1

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
	1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Much of the prose is fine, but there are sentence fragments, list formats, and many separate paragraphs made of one or two sentences, especially in the "Types" section. The prose abruptly changes from one topic to another without clear organization.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section), the lead section should summarize all sections of the article, without introducing unique information that is not in the article body. This lede gives information not found elsewhere, and it does not summarize all sections. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (embedded lists), lists should often be converted into prose, especially when those lists are by nature incomplete. This article often uses lists in ways not appropriate for a "Good Article." Items in the "See also" list seem arbitrary.
	2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Many of the references are fine, and this area is much-improved. But in some books, the page numbers are listed, and in other, they are omitted. When giving a broad and probably-disputed assertion like "About 400 to 600 coping strategies have been identified", we need a more specific source than a textbook, when don't know where in the book to look. Also, many references are duplicates and should be combined.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	There are assertions that are not cited, especially in the "Negative techniques" and "Hormones" sections. These include disputable claims like "This is the most common strategy." Some of the material seems to be a close paraphrase of the source material, to a degree that may be a copyright infringement (e.g. in the Karen Horney section). Though most sources are reliable, a few ([1] and [2]) are self-published, and are not considered reliable sources on Wikipedia.
	2c. it contains no original research.	I don't detect any.
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	It is difficult for me to tell, given the sourcing, whether all important aspects are covered or not.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	This does not seem to be a problem.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	It does not seem to have any obvious neutrality problems. But I am unable to tell, given the sourcing, whether some theories are given undue weight and some theories neglected.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	That's fine.
	6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	No images.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	It should be possible to provide relevant images. The text refers to images that are not in the article itself.
	7. Overall assessment.	This does not pass "Good Article" standards at this time.

In summary, this is a much-improved article with many positive aspects. It is not currently up to "Good Article" standard, but please don't let that discourage you from continuing to work on this or other articles. (Any improvement is appreciated!) I would recommend improving the article based on the comments here, and then submitting it to Wikipedia:Peer review. You may also want to read other psychology-related articles that have attained "Good Article" status, such as Attachment disorder, Stereotype threat, or Maternal deprivation. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

IMO it was a naive GA nomination. Myself and 2 other editors made big improvements recently from the previous disaster where it was split into 3 separate articles with major overlap. But there is still obviously quite a way to go.--Penbat (talk) 18:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)