GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Sasata (talk · contribs) 23:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll claim this review. I'll make uncontroversial copyedits as I read the article, and bring anything else here for discussion. Comments in a day or two. Sasata (talk) 23:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. Ok, here's some comments to get us started. Prose looks good, but there's a few instances where psycho-jargon is used without adequate explanation. Some end-of-paragraph sentences are uncited, leaving me to question whether the conclusion if from a source or from the authors of this article. I'll let you work on these while I dig more deeply into the literature and cross-check some of the sources. Sasata (talk) 20:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No response from nominator, who has been inactive for a couple of weeks, so I am failing this review. Sasata (talk) 19:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Technical comment): the bullet list above was added in the 24 November edit, not in the 13 December fail. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 21:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]