Seductive details has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: November 9, 2015. ( Reviewed version).

A fact from Seductive details appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 27 November 2015 ( check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that seductive details may have a negative effect on learning? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2015/November. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Seductive details.

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Articles for creation This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles This article was accepted from this draft on 8 July 2015 by reviewer Sulfurboy ( talk · contribs). Psychology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

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) reply

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) reply

I'll be happy to take this review. JAG UAR  20:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Disambiguations: none found

Linkrot: none found.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. 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

2. 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

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Neutral

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Stable, no edit warring

6. 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

7. 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! JAG UAR  20:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC) reply