This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The entire "A good language learner" section is basically unsourced, and reads more like a how-to than an encyclopedia article. The Mark of the Beast ( talk) 00:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
In addition, I think the section is exceeding the scope of this page. The good language learner studies were a specific group of studies dealing with the properties that "good" language learners exhibit. I originally wrote this page as a description of these specific studies, and I used a reliable published source to determine which studies were regarded as being within this category. It is really outside Wikipedia's remit for us to decide by ourselves which studies were GLL studies - we really need to stick to the sources to decide how much this article can cover. I see that a lot of the new content is about motivation. Maybe the authors of the content would be open to moving some of that content to the article that we already have, motivation in second language learning? I'll also be happy to answer any questions people might be have about Wikipedia policy and how it relates to this material. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 08:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The entire "A good language learner" section is basically unsourced, and reads more like a how-to than an encyclopedia article. The Mark of the Beast ( talk) 00:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
In addition, I think the section is exceeding the scope of this page. The good language learner studies were a specific group of studies dealing with the properties that "good" language learners exhibit. I originally wrote this page as a description of these specific studies, and I used a reliable published source to determine which studies were regarded as being within this category. It is really outside Wikipedia's remit for us to decide by ourselves which studies were GLL studies - we really need to stick to the sources to decide how much this article can cover. I see that a lot of the new content is about motivation. Maybe the authors of the content would be open to moving some of that content to the article that we already have, motivation in second language learning? I'll also be happy to answer any questions people might be have about Wikipedia policy and how it relates to this material. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 08:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)