Talk:Context effect/GA1

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

Reviewer: Delldot (talk · contribs) 05:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to the project and thank you for working so hard to create and improve this article. I'm going to fail this for now because I feel it would need to be substantially expanded to meet GA criteria. But that doesn't mean this isn't a good start. Your contributions are much appreciated.

I did a Google Scholar search and a Google Books search, and read some of the results. I feel from the results of that that this topic has been covered sufficiently that a lot more could be written about it.

There are also issues with the style in which the article is written, for example as pointed out in the tags, so it needs a copy edit. If you're interested in improving this, let me know and I can offer more precise suggestions.

I'm also going to move this article to Context effect. This is an uncontroversial move, since naming conventions call for singular nouns (and my Google searches showed that it's normal to refer to the effect in the singular). Also it's not necessary to modify the name (psychological) unless another concept could be mistaken for it. ("titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that" WP:PRECISE). There's a stub at context effects that this must have been a fork of, so we'll redirect both of these to context effect and thereby merge them. The move will preserve your edits and the page history will still show that you are the major contributor to the page.

Again, thank you for all the work you've put into this article, it's hugely improved from the stub it was before. If you're interested in continuing to work on the article to improve it, and eventually get it to GA standards, let me know and I will help however I can. delldot  &nabla;.  05:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)