User talk:Sdraaijer/standard setting

Some thoughts on the article: So, I'd keep the 1st and 3rd paragraph as lead in, and then move the 2nd and 4th down but expand them and add some references. Obviously the article isn't finished yet but it looks pretty good to me. I'd definitely consider merging cut score in to this (or vice versa). If you do that with templates then some redirects will be created which might be helpful for people navigating in the future. I'll watch the page too but as I say it's not something I know much about. Hope that helps Sjgknight (talk) 10:34, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I wonder if this article and cut score should be merged, particularly given that article is also up for deletion. I agree something should exist on this topic, but it would be better to have a good quality comprehensive discussion than lots of small not very complete pieces
 * The second paragraph ("there is no correct...") is confusing and probably doesn't need to be in the header. Less and more rigour might be judged as POV or original research potentially...in any case it needs expanding to explain. I'd also avoid creating lead-sections with multiple very short paragraphs.
 * "Obviously" in third paragraph is probably POV, and in any case is redundant.
 * You'll need some references to justify the choice of methods and their notability.

OK, I changed somethings around a bit Sdraaijer (talk) 11:16, 18 October 2013 (UTC)