Talk:Health belief model/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: LT910001 (talk · contribs) 03:14, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I'll take this review. I'll note at the outset I've had no role in editing or creating this article. I welcome other editors at any stage to contribute to this review. In conducting this review, I will: --LT910001 (talk) 03:14, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

• Provide an assessment using WP:GARC
• If this article does not meet the criteria, explain what areas need improvement.
• Provide possible solutions that may (or may not) be used to fix these.

Assessment

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	See below
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	See below
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	See below
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Not precise enough
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Has one image
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	See below

Commentary

Firstly, thanks for your edits to this article. Unfortunately I don't think this article is ready for GA status at the moment. Some comments are listed below:

• At first blush, it's great to see that reliable sources have been used. Unfortunately, there appears to be numerous areas of the article that are unsourced. Secondly, the references to the book "Health Behavior and Health Education: Theory, Research, and Practice " require page numbers, otherwise it's hard to verify (one way to do this is to add {{rp|page number}} after a reference, such as ).
• This article would benefit from at least one image

I'll be happy to continue this review when the references are addressed.--LT910001 (talk) 03:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi LT910001, thanks for reviewing the article. I've addressed a few of your suggestions, and plan to add more sources throughout the article within the next two days.

• I added page numbers to references to the book "Health Behavior and Health Education: Theory, Research, and Practice"
• I moved the diagram/image to the beginning of the article to make it more visible to the reader

I look forward to your comments. --Laurenhan (talk) 02:54, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi LT910001, I added more references throughout the article in order to address your comment that numerous areas of the article were unsourced. Thanks, --Laurenhan (talk) 06:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Assessment

I have provided an assessment of this article. Despite your addition of sources I do not believe that this represents a good article. This is for the following reasons:

• Readability. This article uses overly technical language to analyse this at a purely theoretical level whilst providing author-created examples. The language that is difficult to understand for the layman. It additionally includes numerous examples (see WP:MEDMOS, "Wikipedia is not a collection of case studies, and excessive examples should be avoided"). If included, the numerous examples should represent actual uses of the model.
• Content. I believe this article could be improved by analysing the content critically rather than restating the health belief model purpose of each component of the model. As it is, only the components of the model and the fact that they are efficacious are stated.
• Content. This article is at times overly broad and for good article status some degree of precision is required.
• Content. The historical background, such as reasons that compelled its development, the process of development, and factors that played into the development needs fleshing out.
• Content. The content could do with some more wikilinks to explain and link to relevant content.

Good articles represent some of Wikipedia's best content, and Rome wasn't built in a day. I encourage you to continue working on this article and nominate when you feel it has addressed the above criticism. I feel that the two most valuable things that could be done to improve the quality of this article are to consult a list of GAs relevant to this topic (here: Wikipedia:Good_articles/Natural_sciences#Biology_and_medicine). A fresh pair of eyes would, I feel, also be invaluable in improving this article. Kind regards, and please do not be too disheartened by this assessment, --LT910001 (talk) 11:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)