Talk:Service quality/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Arctic Night 16:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'm reviewing this one. I'll make some general comments before giving an adjudication at the end. Arctic Night 16:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Lead

• The first sentence needs to say what 'service quality' is, not what it involves or relates to. This article is not clear on exactly what it is in the first sentence.
• I'm not too flash hot on using 'according to...', but if you're going to do it, at least do it properly. Use quotation marks ("quote"), and reference the quote afterward.
• The lead needs some serious, serious work. We do not put bullet points in leads. The lead needs to be organised into paragraphs, not bullet point-like sentences.
• Leads typically do not require referencing, and everything that is in the lead should be found elsewhere in the article also. For some tips on constructing a lead, see WP:LEAD.

Definition

• This section needs a thorough copy-edit. One example of a sentence that needs to be fixed is "Service quality is a business administration's term..." - this is grammatically incorrect.
• This section needs to be organised into paragraphs. This means that the paragraphs that currently exist should be merged together, as a one- or two-sentence paragraph is definitely not acceptable in a Good Article.
• "...the concrete measurable conformity of a working result with the previous defined benefit..." - this reeks of jargon, and should be fixed. This applies to pretty much the whole definition section - think of whether the 'man on the street' would understand what this article is trying to say. The article, and especially this section, is full of business buzz words.

Criteria of service quality

• This section needs a thorough copy-edit. One example of a sentence that needs to be fixed is "word-of-mouth, personal needs and past experience create an expected service (Expectation of the service)." - why are there brackets here? Are the brackets necessary, and why is the first letter inside the brackets capitalised?
• "And leads to the perceived..." - sentences should not begin with the word 'and'.
• "Factors which influence the appearing of the gap were found by Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry in 1985." - although as I said before, I am not a fan of directly stating which sources of authority are being used, a reference or link to the source needs to be used in this instance.
• "Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry (1985) identified ten determinants of service quality..." - you said that already - this does not need to be stated twice.
• I'm not a fan of the bullet points. Does this section even need to exist at all? If it does, there is no need for such a long list of service quality determinants.
• "It has the same effect as the junk yard strategy..." - what is the 'junk yard strategy'? This needs to be explained, as coming from the 'man (or woman!) on the street' point of view, I have no idea.
• "and according to latest researches" -> 'research'.

Models of service quality

• We don't need to have links in the bullet points.
• Cite your sources! There is barely any citation in use in this section, and this needs to be fixed, whether or not the article progresses to Good Article status.
• Again, this section needs a good copy-edit. For example, "If they are not match each other..."
• "Keyfactors contributing to the gaps..." (key factors, by the way) - do we really need that long bullet point list for this one? I would say that it is unnecessary.

Approaches to improve service quality

• This section needs a thorough copy-edit. One example of a sentence that needs to be fixed is "And the folowing approches..." - spelling needs to be fixed here, coupled with the fact that sentences should not start with the word 'and'.
• I would say that this entire section should be turned into a short paragraph. The bullet point list is not needed.

Approaches to improve conformance quality

• References should come after the statement they support, not in the middle of them.

Realization

• At this point, the article begins to read like a textbook. While the 'five main service criteria' from before smacks of university business studies, the use of "So,..." as if to conclude the article sounds a lot like a textbook. This section also requires a brief copy-edit.

General comments

• The reference work in this article really needs to be improved. There are whole paragraphs without good references, and this needs to change, whether or not the article reaches Good Article status in the future.
• This entire article needs a good and thorough copy-edit. I understand that the article may have been written by someone whose English is not their first language, and editors would do well to have a copy-edit of this article conducted.

At present, I do not feel that this article has met the Good Article criteria. Editors with this feeling have two choices - to fail the article, or, if they feel that the article only needs a little bit of work to reach the criteria, put it on hold for seven days while editors fix the article up. I am of the opinion that a lot of work is required before this article, and will be unable to pass it at this time. Arctic Night 16:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (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:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: