Talk:Mastery learning/GA1

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

Reviewer: EricEnfermero (talk · contribs) 16:45, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I will be happy to review this. EricEnfermero (Talk) 16:45, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

After taking a good look at the article, I think that there are some significant issues that should be addressed before it is promoted to Good Article status. It makes the most sense to me to close this nomination as unsuccessful and allow any interested editors to make improvements at their own pace. When improvements are achieved, the article can be renominated at any point.

Here are a few problems that I see which may get you started on the necessary improvements.


 * Mastery learning is inconsistently uppercase and lowercase. Most theories use lowercase.
 * The article's subject is usually bolded on the first mention in the lead rather than the end of the lead.
 * It's unclear to me whether learning for mastery is really a synonym - or if it was really the commercial name of the first mastery learning system.
 * Some of the writing is a little awkward and may benefit from a copyedit at WP:GOCE. Example: This cycle will continue until the learner accomplishes mastery, and may move on to the next stage. (The cycle may move on? Or the learner may move on?)
 * Another example from the lead section: so that student's failure (Change this to students' or a student's). A copyedit will help with these issues.
 * The LFM section is one area where a copyedit might help the most. There are some complex sentences that could be simplified, such as the first sentence of the subsection on time allowed for learning.
 * In the PSI section, it would be better to place the list in our own words than to directly quote an entire list.
 * The Assessment section looks unreferenced.
 * In the section on errors in methodology, there are no references - or even any examples.
 * The Mastery Learning Today section discusses very little evidence of its place today. In reality, despite the contention that it is one of the most investigated teaching methods of the last 50 years, only a few references come from the last ten years. Older references can be used in scientific writing if they are seminal works, but it doesn't make sense to base an article on only such sources.

I notice that the nominator has only worked on this article and has no activity since the nomination. I don't want this result to be discouraging. My hope is that it will simply provide some starting points for improving the article. After improving the article, I hope to see this nomination again. EricEnfermero (Talk) 17:58, 16 August 2015 (UTC)