Talk:Mental lexicon/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Bilby (talk · contribs) 15:41, 18 June 2012 (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 ok, but could be tightened. For example, in the lead:

The mental lexicon is defined as a mental dictionary that contains information regarding a word's meaning, pronunciation, syntactic characteristics, and so on.

The "... and so on" and general wording just needs a bit of a copyedit to tighten it a bit. Similarly, in "Methods of inquiry" we jump to a definition of Lexical Decision Tasks, which fits, but doesn't flow from the first part. It isn't a major issue, but again a bit of work on flow wouldn't go amiss, especially as part of that section is then revisited in the next.

There are also some minor WP:MOS issues - mainly that headings need to be in sentence case rather than title case.

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   References are good and verifiable.

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   It comes across well in terms of coverage. I'd like to dig into sources a bit more, but at this stage it seems like GA level.

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

5. 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):

   Captions are actually fine, but I'd like to see alt tags as well. Good choice of diagrams.

6. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I need to chase down the last couple of refs to check, but the main concern is probably in prose style, which needs a good copyedit. Otherwise it is looking good. Accordingly I'm putting it on hold for a bit. - Bilby (talk) 15:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

As it has been almost a month without any edits, I'll give it another week, but that's all I can really do. - Bilby (talk) 01:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as this stage I guess we have to fail the article. No edits have been made. - Bilby (talk) 15:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)