Talk:Cognitive science/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 11:21, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I am surprised to see this mature but poorly-cited article submitted here, especially by an editor who does not appear to have contributed to the article or even to its talk page (which contains good suggestions for improving the article); and the nominator does not appear to have had the courtesy to ask the article's editors via the talk page if it would be appropriate for a non-contributor to bring the article to GAN. The article contains correct tags requesting additional citations; in fact, many paragraphs and some entire sections are wholly uncited, itself sufficient reason for a quick fail.

Given the lack of care already manifested, it does not seem worthwhile investing much time on review, but "Notable researchers" is a poor kind of section, specially as a list, and even more so as half a structured list, half a random accretion of partially-repetitive mini-paragraphs: Minsky and Chomsky appear in the list (cited) and two cruft-mentions, uncited: not exactly what the authors of the GA standard had in mind, I suspect. The section on "Namings" with its emphasis on the admitted neologism "Epistemics" seems a curious fit to the rest of the article: perhaps it was hastily merged here. The "See also" list is out of control. In short, the article needs very substantial attention to organisation and citation. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:21, 4 March 2020 (UTC)