Talk:Educational psychology/GA1

GA Reassessment

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

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   The article is far too listy, e.g. the "Influential educational psychologists and theorists" bit, and the inclusion of "See also" lists in individual sections is not common Wikipedia practice. Also, "References" should go above "See also".

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   There are too few references, an entire section like "Individual differences and disabilities" lacks references altogether. This information is not self-evident, and needs to be backed up by reliable sources.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   As noted, the article does not represent a worldwide view of the subject.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   See 3a above.

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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Lampman (talk) 22:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I notice that steps have been taken to improve the article over the last week. There are still issues, but I will extend the deadline by another week - until 27 June - to see what might be done. Please contact me with any questions or comments. Lampman (talk) 14:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The article's faults are still too significant, so I'm now delisting it. Lampman (talk) 23:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

GA Second Opinion

I have requsted 2nd opinion on the GA Nomination page. The article has the same kind of quality as a professional encyclopedia. whicky1978 ^talk 04:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)