 | Social ecological model was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (January 2, 2013). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. |
GA Review edit
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Social ecological model/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Yash! (talk · contribs) 09:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Though a quick fail, I'll take some time to summarize the issues by tonight. — Yash [talk] 09:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry to quickly fail but the article is in need of attention from an experienced editor. The article does have a good amount of refs but it isn't enough. More than half of the article is unsourced and per the GA criteria, every fact in an article should have at least one reliable source. The existing refs also need to have ISBNs or relevant links for verification of the material. The prose is ok but it can still be improved. MoS fixes are required too. The article needs linkage for few terms and "see also" section needs to be reduced. Bulleting should be converted to fine flowing prose and refs should be provided for it. "Further reading" is a mess and most of them should be removed, keeping nothing more than best 7 books with relevant links to the books. Overall, due to MoS flaws and major lack of refs, I'll have to quickly fail it unfortunately. Once addressed this issues, it can be renominated. — Yash [talk] 15:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)