Talk:McGurk effect/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Astrocog (talk · contribs) 21:18, 4 December 2011 (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):

   Prose is not very good throughout.

   • The lead is too small for the size of the article and lacks enough specificity. Sentences like "People that are better at this have shown to be more susceptible" are particularly bad in this article. Better at what? Susceptible to what? Verb and noun agreements need to be explicit, especially in the lead.
   • Frankly, this article looks like it was written for a college psychology class. Section headings like "Why is it important?" make it more at home in a class essay. I'm trying not to be too harsh here, but I'd like to see prose that is written more friendly for a general audience. There should be more wikilinking of jargon (and general explanations of the most important terms). Be aware of the audience: a general encyclopedia reader, not a pyschology professor or student.
   • The article is divided up into far too many subsections, giving it a choppy appearance and making it an awkward read. Combine the smaller subsections together into larger prose paragraphs.
   • As a person heavily embedded in deaf and hard-of-hearing culture, I'm offended by the use of the term "hearing impaired" and "hearing impairement". Use the terms "deaf" and "hard-of-hearing".
   • The article suffers from citation overkill at many points. It's no use to a general reader to have more than two citations on a single sentence, because it's not clear which reference goes with which fact. Use citation bundling if all the refs are important. Otherwise, just use the one or two main ones to support the basic facts of the sentence.
   • The lead contains a naked quotation. Even with a citation, this is completely inappropriate without context and who is being quoted. This issue was even mentioned in the talk page, so it is even stranger why it wasn't addressed before now. The quote is not particularly unique, so it stands out as unnecessary. Why quote something that can be easily paraphrased or written in original language by editors here?

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   No problems here. All sources appear reliable, although an external link to rutgers.edu is dead, so I can't check it.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The article is certainly broad in its discussion, but it's choppy nature, containing a multitude of subsections, make it an un-focused read. My recommendation is to rewrite it so that it has just a few major sections, like: "Discovery of the effect", "Neurological research of the effect", "Cognitive factors", for example. Somewhere within those basic sections, you could add the information about infants, deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals, and research in other languages.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   No problems evident here.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Article has expanded by 3 times the size in the last month, but appears to be stable now.

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):

   No images in article to review. However, with such a well-studied phenomenon, I would expect there to be images available from press releases of the research teams which could illustrate this. Media are not a requirement for GA, however for something like this, I would expect the inclusion of images and sound, or even a video, if such things are available. A good faith effort should be put into finding them for the future.

7. Overall: This article is a start on the subject, but it has a way to go before meeting GA status. The editors of this article should take some time to rework this article and renominate in the future.

   Pass/Fail:

I agree that the article needs to be more connected with fewer separate sections. I have made some changes to that effect. In the interim, I have also set a limiter on the Table of Contents in order to reduce the size so that the article doesn't get lost beneath it. Paula Marentette (talk) 02:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)