 | Seductive details has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: November 9, 2015. (Reviewed version). |
 | A fact from Seductive details appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 27 November 2015 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Removing Books Project edit
This article isn't about a book at all. Removing WikiProject book tag. --Kristabelle13 (talk) 23:58, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
De-orphaned edit
I just added two links, one from transfer of learning and on from E-learning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loftelon (talk • contribs) 04:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
GA Review edit
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Seductive details/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 20:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
I'll be happy to take this review. JAGUAR 20:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguations: none found
Linkrot: none found.
Checking against GA criteria edit
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
- "are by definition: (1) interesting and (2) not directed toward" - listing points in the lead sounds informal
- "Recently, there have been many criticisms of this theory" - vague
- Two paragraphs in the The research section are unsourced
- "Because adults, on average, having a higher working memory capacity than children, adults are less affected by seductive details than children" - repetition of "adults"
- "When information is made easier to comprehend, material is processed less deeply, thus leading to poorer acquisition of information" - needs a citation
- References could be split into two columns
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- References check out OK, reliable sources, no evidence of OR
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Neutral
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- Stable, no edit warring
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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 used
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
Other than those minor points I couldn't find anything worthy of putting this on hold, so I'll pass it now. This article meets the GA criteria. Well done! 
JAGUAR 20:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)