Talk:Deese–Roediger–McDermott paradigm: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
→Lead section: new section |
||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
{{Talk:Deese–Roediger–McDermott paradigm/GA1}} |
{{Talk:Deese–Roediger–McDermott paradigm/GA1}} |
||
== Lead section == |
|||
Should the lead section contain more (or different) information? I feel like it does a good job of explaining the basics of the paradigm and what it can show, and gives a taster for what is to come, but the banner at the top of the page suggests it lacks something. Any thoughts? |
|||
Revision as of 06:11, 4 June 2012
 | Psychology C‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Deese–Roediger–McDermott paradigm was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Editing
We are a part of the project working at Davidson College to enhance the level of psychology topics relative to Cognitive Psychology. We have been assigned to this page and here is our strategy for enhancing the quality of this article:
We are going to begin by creating an short introduction to the article as an overview of the entire article. We are going to completely start over considering the body of the article and expand on the topic using many verifiable sources from various psychology journals, studies, and articles. We are currently researching and wish to create an article that is very clear, easy to read, and easy to follow based upon our research. We are going to create at least 4 subheadings after the introduction and general overview of the DRM Paradigm.
Seth Kindig (talk) 16:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)Seth Kindig Seth Kindig (talk) 16:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)Taylor Haynes
- That proposal is fine.Smallman12q (talk) 17:49, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
GA Review
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Deese–Roediger–McDermott paradigm/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Smallman12q (talk · contribs) 00:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
While the article is well-sourced, it requires a thorough copyedit to meet GA standards.
Comments
- There are only 3 wikilinks in the text...this is insufficient. Please add more wikilinks.
- Rather than using "Fabiani et. al (2000) " you should described the study in a sentence..."A study at X university, by X researchers conducted in X year found...X"
- The tone is a bit off in places...reading like an essay. For example "The question of why the DRM paradigm still remains. " should be something like "The cause of the DRM paradigm is not fully understood and is the subject of ongoing psychological studies."
- Where possible, terms should be defined where they are used...not after as in "The above explanation is known as activation monitoring theory."
- There are some grammer errors such as "The wanted to determine the..."...should be "They wanted to determine the..."
Smallman12q (talk) 00:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
-Issues went unaddressed.Smallman12q (talk) 17:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Lead section
Should the lead section contain more (or different) information? I feel like it does a good job of explaining the basics of the paradigm and what it can show, and gives a taster for what is to come, but the banner at the top of the page suggests it lacks something. Any thoughts?