Talk:Imagined contact hypothesis

Kinkreet

• I approved it because it is a good enough article, and I can see a lot of effort was put into its creation, which is appreciated. However, there are still the problem of style - it is written like an essay. Maybe a rewording using more of your own words will make this better? Also a lead needs to be written to summarize the whole topic, this might even just be a condensed form of your first section. For more help see MOS:LEAD Thanks for your contribution, and good luck! Kinkreet (talk) 02:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Imagined contact hypothesis/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Guerillero (talk · contribs) 22:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

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.	Watch for subject verb agreement like This pattern of results were and with an obese individuals as well as your use of possessives. Years of articles, like Turner and Crisp (2010), aren't needed if you are using footnotes.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead needs to be expanded.
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.	Please be consistent in your citation style. Some citations from the same book/article contain page numbers and some don't. Everything needs to have the author name. Do not assume that the reader can assume that two books of the same name were written by the same person.
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Good job
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.	N/A
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	N/A
	7. Overall assessment.

I have placed this on hold pending some changes --Guerillero | My Talk 00:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Response to GA Review

Thank you for reviewing this article in regards to the GA status. I have completed a number of changes regarding your comments. If you can please take another look that would be much appreciated. --npalt123;My Talk 22:43, 9 February 2015 PST

Here are some of the issues I still see

1. Citation 8 (Allport, G. W. (1954). The Nature of Prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books) still needs a page number.
2. Since you are no longer in class, can I suggest the {{Cite journal}} series of templates or {{sfn}}? Because here are all of the nit-picky things that I can see, right now, with your manual use of APA formatting
   • You inconstantly use p, pp, and just page numbers.
   • Is there a reason for the change between initials in some citations and the full names in other citations for the name person?
   • You aren't consistent with the colon between the volume/issue and the page number.
   • Some of your volumes are bolded and some are in italics
3. Your lead needs another sentence or two because of the length of the article.

Those are the last errors I see --Guerillero | My Talk 00:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• Guerillero, it's been over a month since you posted the above, and Npalt123 has not edited on Wikipedia since the day prior to your post. I think you need to decide whether to close the nomination, and at this point it clearly fails to meet the standards of WP:LEAD in a number of ways, including the most basic: Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. The origin of the theory, for example, is only mentioned in the lead, and the odd use of "[stigmatized]" there, the only place in the article the word is used, is definitely not GA caliber. The article still has the "lead too short" template on it, and the lead is heavily cited: since the lead is supposed to be summarizing the rest of the article, those facts should be cited when it appears in the rest of the article, and only if controversial or a quote should they be cited in the lead. I should probably note that the "what is a good article" page states, regarding references: Using consistent formatting or including every element of the bibliographic material is not required, although, in practice, enough information must be supplied that the reviewer is able to identify the source, so while you can suggest those citation changes, most of them (except the missing page number) are not things that should prevent a GA from being listed. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:42, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)