Talk:Cognitive flexibility/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: TheSpecialUser (talk · contribs) 10:29, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Giving the issues in few minutes. Thanks!  TheSpecialUser TSU 10:29, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I fear that a lot of work should be done on the article in order to get this upto GA standards and I'm extremely sorry that this'll be a quick fail. Here are the primary reasons for the failure:


 * Per WP:LEAD, it should summarize the article and at present it is only giving 3 definitions by different authors and not by any world renowned organization etc.
 * Ref issues - there are plenty of them but all of them are not well formatted and 90%+ of them are not readable. They will require ISBN or any link so that the material cited could be verified.
 * I cite few grammatical errors in the prose as well as copyediting is required from someone who is expert in the topic
 * MoS fixes are needed a lot. Example, the headings and sub-headings should not be in italic form.
 * Despite of 80+ refs, many facts remain unsourced in the article. If you are aiming for GA, each and every fact should cite at least one ref to reliable source using well formatted citation.

I appreciate the efforts but unfortunately, this article is not near to GA status; these issues cannot be addressed easily. Once addressed the concerns above, anyone can re-nominate it. Thank you.  TheSpecialUser TSU 10:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

These changes have been addressed. Please see the updated page. Obrien.sarah (talk) 05:23, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

1. Citations. A good article should not have [citation needed] tags. 2. Also, the formatting is inconsistent, this is a minor point, but inline citations should be after the punctuation with no spaces. 3. Further, especially the lead section covers a lot of ground, but only provides one citation. It would be great to have a few more references to back up the many claims being made. 4. Formatting. Headings should be full page width (neural underpinnings is cut short by the image.) 5. You could add the psychology sidebar to the article (copy it from another article, e.g. the deferred gratification article). If you do this, the TOC looks a lot better if it is directly under the lead section.

These issues listed above have been corrected. Please refer to the main article page. Obrien.sarah (talk) 04:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)