Talk:Team effectiveness/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 20:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 20:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Stability review

1. Article mainspace = Upon inspection of article mainspace, edit history shows no signs of conflict going back several months.
2. Talk page = Looking at talk page and talk page history shows stability.

Article is stable.

Next, on to image review. — Cirt (talk) 04:45, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Image review

@Xyzbb1253: Licensing checks out okay on all images. All images hosted on Wikimedia Commons. However the formatting in the article is a bit odd. Please remove the italics from the captions. Please format all images with "thumb" in the parameters to default to ideal image size. Suggest adding year of picture in parentheses after caption descriptive text. Optional if you wish, to read Wikipedia:Alternative text for images and add ALT Text to images as well. Please update here when above is done. — Cirt (talk) 04:57, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I have made the respective changes to the article

p.s. Thank you for reviewing my article

Xyzbb1253 (talk) 06:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

@Xyzbb1253:, most of the cites in the article appear to be nicely formatted with Wikipedia:Citation templates, but can you format number 12, Hackman? And go through and make sure all others are formatted the same way? — Cirt (talk) 15:44, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I have made adjustments to the references -- Xyzbb1253 (talk) 10:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

@Xyzbb1253:, you shouldn't need citations in the lede intro sect at all, per WP:LEAD the lede intro sect should function as a standalone summary of the entire article's contents, and should only summarize stuff cited later in the body of the article itself. Cites are only needed in lede for direct quotes and/or material that is contentious or likely to be challenged. Can you fix that? — Cirt (talk) 17:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I have reduced the amount of citations in the intro but left some important one's because the topic of team effectiveness is a very common topic in the fields of I/O Psychology, Organizational Behavior & Organization Development, even though the article is stable, it very likely that without sources the article will be challenged. --Xyzbb1253 (talk) 01:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good. Should finish up the rest of the review soon. I'll let you know if there's anything else I can think of that would help improve it further. — Cirt (talk) 02:23, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Pass as GA

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.	After reading the lede intro sect and hearing about "view themselves as a unit", I couldn't help but hear the music for The Unit stuck in my head. :) But seriously, it's well-written, with good presentation and structure throughout.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Yes, after some pointers, above, the lede and other sections comply with layout parameters.
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.	Duly cited throughout to quite good sources, mainly academic journal articles.
	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).	Good use of in-line citations throughout page.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Relies upon secondary sources and statements are matter-of-fact.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Covers major aspects, and yet in a nice, concise and succinct manner. Certainly room for expansion, but good for GA quality at this point in time.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Yes, as noted above, article is quite focused.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	As noted above, article is matter-of-fact and neutral in tone.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	As noted above, article is stable.
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.	As noted above, article passes for image requirements.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	As noted above, image use is fine in article at present time.
	7. Overall assessment.	A good, educational and encyclopedic article. Nicely done. — Cirt (talk) 23:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)