Talk:Social ecological model
 | 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. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
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)
Suggestions
[edit]I am a student at BYUI currently enrolled in an Adult Development (Psych 322) class and we are reviewing and commenting on Wikipedia articles, so I apologize as I am new to Wikipedia and making comments. As I read through this article, I noticed especially at how old some of the sources are, I think that there needs to be more recent sources and that the sources should be more prevalent throughout the article so that everything has a source that can be traced back. This article does have strengths in its organization and its conciseness, but it lacks in other areas that are quite vital such as the recent sources and the lack of media throughout the page. This article failed to be rated a good article by Wikipedia, and I think it has improved since then, but it still needs a little bit more. Jackt818 (talk) 03:09, 2 October 2024 (UTC) Jackt818 (talk) 03:09, 2 October 2024 (UTC)