Talk:Moral psychology/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Elektrik Shoos (talk · contribs) 04:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

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):

   As indicated by the cleanup tags already on the article, copyediting for spelling and grammar is needed throughout the article. The article also has two introductions, for some reason. The reference style used is inconsistent, which can confuse the reader looking to verify sources in the article. It reads like an essay and needs to be rewritten with an encyclopedic tone.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   There are outstanding {{citation needed}} tags in the article which have yet to be addressed. The list of references largely points to print media and publications in journals behind paywalls, so I'm not immediately able to assess the quality of these sources. However, a few sections, namely the "Background" and "Cultural values" sections, appear to engage in synthesis, a form of original research which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Articles should be simply reporting on facts already published in outside sources, and not advancing new ideas.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Since I'm not a expert in the field, I can't speak to the exact coverage needed by this article. However, it appears to do an adequate job at covering the key aspects of moral psychology. That said, formatting and tone issues as described above make it difficult to gauge the full extent of the article's coverage.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

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):

   This particular criteria isn't really applicable here, as I find it difficult to think of many images which would be appropriate here.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Unfortunately, the article still has a way to go before meeting the criteria for a good article.