Talk:Executive functions/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ItsZippy (talk · contribs) 17:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC) Hi, I will review this article. I shall post my comments shortly; additional comments from other users are welcomed. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:05, 23 December 2011 (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.	Generally good prose throughout. There are occasions of editorialising - "such as a tasty piece of chocolate cake" - which could be cleaned up. This isn't enough to fail the nomination, though.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Everything is fine except for the lead. The lead should serve as a summary of the article and be able to stand-alone as a shorter version. The lead needs considerable expansion; I'd suggest substantial coverage on each top level heading in the article.
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.	Very well sourced.
	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).	Very well cited.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Not a problem.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Broad in coverage and stays on topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	See above.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Adheres to NPOV very well.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No problems here.
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.	The image used is is tagged appropriately.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The image used is fine, enough to pass GA, though perhaps more images could be included.
	7. Overall assessment.	Overall, the article is very good; there are a few minor problems, though these are not enough to fail the GA nomination. My only concern is that the lead section is way too short; it should serve as a shorter summary of the whole article, rather than serve as an introduction. If you manage to improve the lead, I'll pass this (if it looks like it'll take a little while, then I'll fail it to allow you enough time). As the article has not been substantially edited since the review, I'm failing it to give it more time.

ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

• also, PubMed and doi or other identifiers should be given for journal articles per WP:MEDRS so sources can be accessed by readers. Also ISBN for books. Also, some of the references seem out of date (no more thatn 5-10 years old, per WP:MEDRS) MathewTownsend (talk) 02:48, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

As the article has not been substantially edited since the review, I'm failing it to give it more time. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 10:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC)