Content deleted Content added
→GA Review: on hold |
|||
Line 26:
#::The Sternin source needs to state the publisher and/or journal.
#::The McCawley source looks like it could use more parameters, either the journal or an accessdate.
#::Only one of your book sources states the page number(s) that backs up the statements.
#:B. Citation to reliable sources [[Wikipedia:Good article criteria/where necessary|where necessary]]: {{GAList/check|n}}
#::You don't need sources in the lead, as long as the information is backed up in the body.
#::Un-sourced statements:
#::"Formally, community-based program development has been professionalized by such disciplines as urban studies and planning and social work."
Line 49 ⟶ 51:
#::Regarding the model image - what is this images source? Is it based on information specifically found in source No. 2 (being the only source in the 'Socio-ecological model' sub-section)? I'm not an expert on image licensing, but if it isn't based on a specific source, I think this image would constitute as original research. Also you could probably make a better version of it in a program like [[Microsoft Paint]]. The text doesn't appear to be centered all the way down and there are different spaced gaps between the text and the circles. This isn't a fail point in itself, but I definitely think you can make a better image.
#'''Overall''':
#:Pass or Fail: {{GAList/check|?}}
There are a few issues here. I'm placing this on hold to see if they can be addressed. Even if they all are I may ask for a second opinion as I've never reviewed a 'Social sciences and society' article before and I'm not really sure if all the major aspects have been covered. [[User:Freikorp|Freikorp]] ([[User talk:Freikorp|talk]]) 10:34, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
| |||