Talk:CernySmith Assessment

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the CernySmith Assessment article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Physiology Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physiology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysiologyWikipedia:WikiProject PhysiologyTemplate:WikiProject PhysiologyPhysiology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article has not yet been associated with a particular area.

Articles for creation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted on 18 May 2012 by reviewer Pol430 (talk · contribs).

Psychology

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on CernySmith Assessment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:11, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unpublished Research and POV

Hi. Just passing through. Sometimes I randomly comment on article issues, and there appear to be couple with this one. They could be divided into two sections here on Talk but I'll keep them together for brevity. First, the very, very long quote is an excerpt from unpublished research (according to the quote's introductory text.) Unless and until it passes peer review, it might not deserve to be included in the article at all. Therefore, if it is included, it certainly should not be several times longer than the rest of the article's cited research. If anyone here concurs, please feel free to remove or significantly shorten the quoted passage of text. Second, it appears that there are many studies with results that shed positive light on the subject, but surely there must be some findings that are negative, or at least constructively critique the subject, right? If not, then I suspect most research being performed on CernySmith's reliability, validity, value, etc. isn't truly conducted by neutral and dispassionate observers, but rather by CernySmith enthusiasts possessing the potential to suffer observer bias. If most people are motivated to research CernySmith because they already think it has predictive potential, they are statistically likely to reach foregone conclusions more positive than negative. That notwithstanding, I suggest this article would benefit from the balance added through cited research or published evaluation that is't 100% flattering to the subject (if any exists.) IMHO, y'know.49.228.245.135 (talk) 04:04, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]