Jump to content

Talk:Cognition/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Nominator: Phlsph7 (talk · contribs) 09:17, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Magnesium Cube (talk · contribs) 22:30, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]


I'll be doing the GA review for this article ->

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
    a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
    Passes Earwig's Copyvio check (20.0%). Virtually no evidence of original research. >140 different inline citations referencing reliable sources (e.g. Cognition, An Introduction to Cognitive Psychology, Cognition: Exploring the Science of the Mind, Cognitive Psychology: A Student's Handbook, Complete Psychology, etc, etc. I have added bibcode, chapter-url, isbn, pages, article-number, pmc, pmid, to references via Citation bot. PASSES.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    No evident instability in recent history. PASSES.
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Broad array of images (no copyright violations) with relation to the topic of cognition in their respective senses. PASSES.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Additional Remarks

  • It would be better to remove the chapters from the References section for these two: