Template:Did you know nominations/Encoding specificity principle
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was not promoted after 27 days. The article's contributors have failed to respond to the concerns raised below about original research and sourcing. Cunard (talk) 01:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Encoding specificity principle[edit]
- ... that the encoding specificity principle suggests students match study and testing environments for the best recall of information?
- Comment: improved as part of class project
5x expanded by Margaret Cookson (talk), DrewBlundell (talk). Nominated by Greta Munger (talk) at 18:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- Hook, source are fine. Expansion: ~4.2x(21k/4k).Smallman12q (talk) 13:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
-5x expansion not met.Smallman12q (talk) 00:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- This one might be close enough to IAR. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe, but it needs serious MOS editing--there are inline URLs even in the lead; sections are done with bold print, not with headings; headings themselves have incorrect capitalization; there are punctuation errors (missing after dates)... I also see what looks like OR: see, for instance, the end of the section called "Encoding Specificity and Advertising". In fact, the entire article reads like an essay, which led me to suspect what I indeed found confirmed on the talk page: an educational assignment.
The article needs a good scrubbing by someone familiar with the MOS and a good revision for a more encyclopedic style. Drmies (talk) 20:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- What I thought were external links were in fact wikilinks done externally--this needs to be corrected. But I see more problems: the first main section claims "The most prominent method for testing and proving the encoding specificity principle was created by Harry P. Bahrick"--and the statement is sourced to Bahrick's article. Any claim about prominence needs a secondary source, and one could argue that secondary sourcing is necessary for a lot more here: that a theory is worthwhile mentioning is in fact what needs to be established with an outside source. I applaud the Davidson students for having tackled this, but if it is to advertise Wikipedia on the front page it will need work. Drmies (talk) 20:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- MOS issues, especially relatively trivial ones like bold section headings and inline external links, are not an appropriate reason to reject an article. First of all, they are so easy to fix; secondly, and most to the point, the DYK criteria do not include "MOS compliance". Remember, this is not GA.
On the other hand, if there actually are OR and referencing issues, that is more serious. I have noticed these problems with most school assignments I see (not specifically this class). rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- MOS issues, especially relatively trivial ones like bold section headings and inline external links, are not an appropriate reason to reject an article. First of all, they are so easy to fix; secondly, and most to the point, the DYK criteria do not include "MOS compliance". Remember, this is not GA.
- Maybe, but it needs serious MOS editing--there are inline URLs even in the lead; sections are done with bold print, not with headings; headings themselves have incorrect capitalization; there are punctuation errors (missing after dates)... I also see what looks like OR: see, for instance, the end of the section called "Encoding Specificity and Advertising". In fact, the entire article reads like an essay, which led me to suspect what I indeed found confirmed on the talk page: an educational assignment.
- This one might be close enough to IAR. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
