Talk:Functional magnetic resonance imaging/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs) 14:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I will be doing reviews of referencing and whatnot before prose, as I find it pointless to review prose if/when the article has many other issues.
Checklist[edit]
| 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. | |
|
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Tone issues rampant |
| 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. | Page numbers for numerous footnotes missing |
|
|
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). | Numerous unreferenced paragraphs |
|
|
2c. it contains no original research. | Linear addition from multiple activation section is terribly undersourced, giving the impression that it is OR |
| 3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
|
|
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | |
|
|
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. | Good |
|
|
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Good |
|
|
7. Overall assessment. | Pending |
Referencing is far under par. Failed. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)