| Revision as of 11:43, 30 January 2007 editAction potential (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers9,090 edits →[]: quick response to GB← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:07, 30 January 2007 edit undoAction potential (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers9,090 edits →[]: added AAT and ISSN - this is work in progress.Next edit → | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| *A medical (or quasi) article must have the highest-quality sources, which are usually indicated by the presence of a PMID, indicating peer-reviewed research. I don't see any. If this article came to FAC, I'd be checking every source for credibility, self-publication, etcetera, and objecting on grounds of lack of peer-reviewed, journal-published sources. ] (]) 20:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC) | *A medical (or quasi) article must have the highest-quality sources, which are usually indicated by the presence of a PMID, indicating peer-reviewed research. I don't see any. If this article came to FAC, I'd be checking every source for credibility, self-publication, etcetera, and objecting on grounds of lack of peer-reviewed, journal-published sources. ] (]) 20:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::I've started a list of articles related to NLP that have been indexed in pubmed: ] --] |
::I've started a list of articles related to NLP that have been indexed in pubmed: ]. I've also added AAT for dissertation and DOI for those indexed by psychinfo, etc. --] 22:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *There are still quite a few improvement tags requesting clean up, expansion, checking imbalance. These should be actioned. The Criticism part is pretty mild. (my POV would be this NLP is a ]) and could be strengthened somewhat. The article size is about right, anybigger and you would think about splitting into more topics. ] 09:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC) | *There are still quite a few improvement tags requesting clean up, expansion, checking imbalance. These should be actioned. The Criticism part is pretty mild. (my POV would be this NLP is a ]) and could be strengthened somewhat. The article size is about right, anybigger and you would think about splitting into more topics. ] 09:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::Of the peer-reviewed articles indexed in psychinfo, only a very small percentage hold the view that NLP is a pseudoscience. On the contrary most authors argue strongly for further research. Would you characterise your POV as positivist? --] 11:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC) | ::Of the peer-reviewed articles indexed in psychinfo, only a very small percentage hold the view that NLP is a pseudoscience. On the contrary most authors argue strongly for further research. Would you characterise your POV as positivist? Are you referring to a specific applications of NLP, for example, to the mental health profession? --] 11:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 22:07, 30 January 2007
Neuro-linguistic programming
We have made adjustments to the page based on feedback from peer review and cleanup taskforce. We would like some suggestions on how to take this closer to GA or FA standard. Otherwise, how we could encourage experienced wikipedians to assist us in the process. --Comaze 22:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 02:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- A medical (or quasi) article must have the highest-quality sources, which are usually indicated by the presence of a PMID, indicating peer-reviewed research. I don't see any. If this article came to FAC, I'd be checking every source for credibility, self-publication, etcetera, and objecting on grounds of lack of peer-reviewed, journal-published sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've started a list of articles related to NLP that have been indexed in pubmed: Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming/Peer reviewed sources. I've also added AAT for dissertation and DOI for those indexed by psychinfo, etc. --Comaze 22:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- There are still quite a few improvement tags requesting clean up, expansion, checking imbalance. These should be actioned. The Criticism part is pretty mild. (my POV would be this NLP is a pseudoscience) and could be strengthened somewhat. The article size is about right, anybigger and you would think about splitting into more topics. GB 09:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- Of the peer-reviewed articles indexed in psychinfo, only a very small percentage hold the view that NLP is a pseudoscience. On the contrary most authors argue strongly for further research. Would you characterise your POV as positivist? Are you referring to a specific applications of NLP, for example, to the mental health profession? --Comaze 11:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)