This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Cross-cultural differences in decision-making article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Cross-cultural differences in decision-making was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (May 18, 2013). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Hchc2009 ( talk · contribs) 10:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
I've identified some issues below; the article has real potential, but there's some work to be done. There are some other, smaller bits to address, but I'm putting the review on hold until we've worked through the broad issues. If you've got any questions, feel free to ask them - I'll do my best to ensure that the article gets through the review! Hchc2009 ( talk) 18:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Well-written:
(a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct;
(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
Factually accurate and verifiable:
(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;
(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;
(c) it contains no original research.
Broad in its coverage:
(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;
(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
Illustrated, if possible, by images:
(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;
(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
The article itself is well-written.
However, it needs more categories added to it. There was only one category, "Cognitive psychology", and no external links. Additionally, very few articles link to it. Epicgenius( talk to me • see my contributions) 12:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Cross-cultural differences in decision-making article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Cross-cultural differences in decision-making was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (May 18, 2013). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Hchc2009 ( talk · contribs) 10:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
I've identified some issues below; the article has real potential, but there's some work to be done. There are some other, smaller bits to address, but I'm putting the review on hold until we've worked through the broad issues. If you've got any questions, feel free to ask them - I'll do my best to ensure that the article gets through the review! Hchc2009 ( talk) 18:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Well-written:
(a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct;
(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
Factually accurate and verifiable:
(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;
(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;
(c) it contains no original research.
Broad in its coverage:
(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;
(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
Illustrated, if possible, by images:
(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;
(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
The article itself is well-written.
However, it needs more categories added to it. There was only one category, "Cognitive psychology", and no external links. Additionally, very few articles link to it. Epicgenius( talk to me • see my contributions) 12:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)