Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a24bd2b5186bb965

Jump to content

Talk:Intelligence/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 11 years ago by Tezero in topic GA Review

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Tezero (talk · contribs) 02:42, 14 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Quick-failing; largely underreferenced, incomplete in many areas, unformatted sources, etc. I recommend looking over the GA criteria. Tezero (talk) 02:42, 14 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Actually, maybe I should provide a little more detail:

  • "The term "intelligence" has therefore become less common in English language philosophy, but it has later been taken up (with the scholastic theories which it now implies) in more contemporary psychology." - Statements like this need sources as it's easy to challenge them. I, for example, don't see why the term "intelligence" is any more common in psychology now than it used to be. This is especially the case for the "Animal and plant intelligence" section, as these topics have huge ramifications for the subject of animal rights.
  • The various definitions of intelligence are not given context of why the reader should care about them. While I took AP Psych in high school and thus have heard of some of these people and could describe their theories on a low level, this context is not presented to the reader; they might as well be random people. In general, I would say all of the sections except the first should be significantly expanded. In particular, the reader is given very little about the history of the controversies over the term "intelligence" and its various definitions.
  • The term "intelligence quotient" does not appear anywhere on the page - that is rather startling. This is an important concept essential to an understanding of intelligence in popular culture and academia alike.
  • Overall, I would recommend looking at other psychology/medical-related GAs and FAs to see what level of detail and coverage is expected. The article Free will, a concept that I admittedly think is pretty meaningless, might be a good place to start as it's in a similar area and of similar breadth.

Tezero (talk) 02:50, 14 September 2014 (UTC)Reply