# Talk:Seductive details

This article isn't about a book at all. Removing WikiProject book tag. --Kristabelle13 (talk) 23:58, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I just added two links, one from transfer of learning and on from E-learning.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loftelon (talk • contribs) 04:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC) 

This review is transcluded from Talk:Seductive details/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 20:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll be happy to take this review. JAGUAR  20:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguations: none found
Linkrot: none found. 


### Checking against GA criteria
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
"are by definition: (1) interesting and (2) not directed toward" - listing points in the lead sounds informal
"Recently, there have been many criticisms of this theory" - vague
Two paragraphs in the The research section are unsourced
"Because adults, on average, having a higher working memory capacity than children, adults are less affected by seductive details than children" - repetition of "adults"
"When information is made easier to comprehend, material is processed less deeply, thus leading to poorer acquisition of information" - needs a citation
References could be split into two columns
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
References check out OK, reliable sources, no evidence of OR
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
Neutral
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 
Stable, no edit warring
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
No images used
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Other than those minor points I couldn't find anything worthy of putting this on hold, so I'll pass it now. This article meets the GA criteria. Well done!  JAGUAR  20:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)