Talk:Cognitive inertia/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Edwininlondon (talk · contribs) 10:24, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will have a look. At first glance it looks good. I have done some minor edits (commas, links) as a first pass. I hope you don't mind. Please revert any you think I have done wrong. Will review the article properly soon.

The lead[edit]

No references needed in the lead. Only when something controversial is claimed.

The definition is not easy to read. I am not an expert in any way but I wonder if the "endure" is necessary. It would certainly read easier: "... to resist change."

"especially after it has been in use for a significant amount of time" --> This "especially" is a bit puzzling to me. I don't think in physics time matters for inertia.

"cognitive specific processes" --> should this be "specific cognitive processes" or "cognitive-specific processes"? Not sure what this means.

"In clinical and neuroscientific literature cognitive inertia is often defined.." --> Should this not perhaps come rights after the first sentence?

Style: just about every sentence repeats the term. Is there a way to stop the repetition?

I think a sentence about alternative theories would be good to include in the lead. Maybe also a sentence about the applications?

Changes have been made as best as possible regarding these suggestions. Abinnquist (talk) 01:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work.

Body[edit]

"Furthermore, McGuire proposed if .." -->This bit is hard to follow. Would it perhaps be a good idea to first describe in normal language what he proposes, and then add something like "More formally he proposes that .."?

"denoted as p(a) and p(b)" --> it's not quite clear what these denote. I assume not the delta, although it looks like it because it comes after "changed"

"The model was based on probability to .." --> Would it perhaps be better to mention this before the formulae?

(more later..)

Great notes. I actually had a hard time making this clear myself. I did my best to update. Abinnquist (talk) 01:44, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

________ Okay, a bit more:

“people stick to their mental models and beliefs even ‘in the face of contradictory evidence’” --> if you use quotes you have to say who you are quoting. The question is do you really need to quote someone? Is this a controversial viewpoint?

gets off the ground floor --> maybe a bit too colloquial

however, despite often substandard products or services customers often do not switch services or buy new products. --> I get lost here. Maybe better as a standalone sentence and definitely remove the double often.

“promotes one-track thinking and diminishes the performance of groups” --> another quote that may either be unnecessary or needs attribution

Habersang, et al --> that's a bit too academic. You can just list their last names

there are 22 instances of often in the article, which is fine, except that sometimes they are too close together.

More later. Edwininlondon (talk) 09:34, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

________ OAnd here is the last bit:

In a large online study ... based on their opinion. --> too long a sentence.

Rapp, Christof (2012-08-01). --> This seems to be a chapter in an edited book. It needs the book title, The Oxford Handbook of Aristotle, the editor, Christopher Shields, page numbers of the chapter

Feldman, Shel (1969). According to this page https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=8vJFBQAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=Cognitive+consistency+:+motivational+antecedents+and+behavioral+conssequents&ots=iPweUg-u9I&sig=TG8QSzz6MOKyODgVwrJd0rkhcSs&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false Feldman is the editor and the book is from 1966.

Huebener, Paul --> need publisher and location. Check other books as well if they have this info.

Tripsas, Mary; Gavetti, Giovanni (2014) --> needs chpter page numbers and editor name. I see as publisher name Birkhäuser. I'm not sure what the all caps DE GRUYTER is for.

And that is it. If you make these changes all looks good for Good Article criteria. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:00, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All the above suggested edits have been modified or changed for improvement. Sorry about the absence and completely understand if it no longer applies for good article status but at the very least it has been improved. Thanks so much Edwininlondon I appreciate the patience, feel free to wrap it up. Abinnquist (talk) 22:44, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to reviewer[edit]

Edwininlondon, I thought I should point out that Abinnquist, the nominator, has not edited on Wikipedia since December 19, 2019. The article was worked on as part of a graduate class assignment for Fall 2019, so it seems unlikely that the nominator will be returning to edit on Wikipedia as the course is long over. To save you from doing a full review that might never be addressed, you might want to put the nomination on hold so that the issues you've already raised can be worked on if anyone is around to do so. (It has already been four weeks since your initial posting, with no edits to the article beyond your own.) If there is no response or editing in the next seven days, you can safely close the nomination if you wish, or allow more time for a response. Thank you very much for taking on the review. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:22, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out. I was already a bit suspicious, since normally nominators quickly respond to me when I start a review. I will do as you suggest. Edwininlondon (talk) 17:57, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edwininlondon, I apologize for the long absence. BlueMoonset was not wrong that I am a grad student that edited this page for a class. However, if it is not too late I have started making some changes based on recommendations. It has been a rough past couple of months, I'm sure for all of us. However, I am proud of the work I put into the page and would love to still be considered if possible. Abinnquist (talk) 01:41, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good to have you back! I'm confident we can meet the requirements for GA. I have removed the "on hold" flag and will pick up reviewing again. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Abinnquist: I have finished my comments. When you have time to update we can finialise the review process. Best, Edwininlondon (talk) 15:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edwininlondon, Abinnquist made an edit to the article two days after the above post; it is their most recent edit on Wikipedia, now over seven weeks old. Perhaps you should set a deadline, not too far in the future (September 7, two months after that most recent edit, would be perfectly reasonable), when you will do a final judgment on whether the review should be closed as a pass or a fail. At that point, the review will have been open for over four months. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:24, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That seems fair. Abinnquist, I shall wrap up the review on September 12. Edwininlondon (talk) 06:17, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

final review[edit]

It took a while, with a bit of stop and go, but this article now satisfies the criteria for Good Article in my view: reasonably well written, factually accurate and verifiable, broad in its coverage, neutral point of view, stable. Ideally there are illustrations, but I think given the nature of the topic, without illustrations is still ok. Edwininlondon (talk) 12:30, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]