This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Graeme Bartlett (talk | contribs) at 09:30, 30 January 2007 (→[]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 09:30, 30 January 2007 by Graeme Bartlett (talk | contribs) (→[])(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)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 --Comaze 23:01, 27 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)