Talk:Deese–Roediger–McDermott paradigm

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Psychology (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
Former good article nominee 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 are 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.
December 14, 2011 Good article nominee Not listed

Editing[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daronsen (talkcontribs) 06:11, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you that a look at WP:LEAD, it's not necessarily about content but style. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:32, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
The lead section has been changed for almost a week now, and there have been no comments, so I will remove the tag, but please comment if you think it still needs work Daronsen (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)