Talk:Matching hypothesis
Add topic | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Comments
[edit]This needs some serious work, i'd do it myself but wouldn't know where to start... besides i got work of my own to do.. i don't think even so much as the date for Murstein's study is right, and whats with all the A-level discussio forums coming up when i try googling murstein, is it only studied at A level? starting to think this is one shitty assed study.. steer clear.
actaully, i take back what i said about it needing work, it just needs a complete re-doing. shotgun not.
Yinmaru (talk) 23:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
This is a very bad article that reads like it was copied from a high school/undergraduate textbook - the citations have the authors name and year but not the titles of the papers (as if the article writer copied it from a textbook but forgot to include the Bibliography), and the descriptions of the experiments are very vague,
-- Gordon Ross
Just did a minor change to the "computer dance" section near the top of the page. Article stated the study did not support the matching hypothesis when in fact it does.
Jackmac17 09:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
How can the Matching Hypothesis be proposed by Murstein in 1970 and be tested by Walster in 1966? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duckman142 (talk • contribs) 15:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
oops! i was wrong! changed it backJackmac17 17:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
This article looks like it has been copied from an A Level essay; it was probably written by a 17/18 year old student with minimal knowledge of the subject. Randomwellwisher 23:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Surely the first sentence of the article attributes the [physical] matching hypothesis to the *wrong* scholar. It should be attributed to Walster et al. (1966), as indeed is apparent from the rest of this Wikipedia article. 83.7.142.216 (talk) 07:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Rating
[edit]On the basis of my reading of the article, and others' comments, it seems that B-class is a very over-generous rating and I have changed it to start class. It will be good to see it expanded with time. Lord Spring Onion (talk) 11:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)