Talk:Cognitive flexibility/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: CabbageX (talk · contribs) 21:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

This is a resubmission for review after an initial quickfail. The authors have done a good job in addressing the previous reviewers comments, and have greatly improved the article since.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The lead section provides an excellent overview of the article. Generally, the article is well written with neutral language.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Unfortunately, some references are not appropriate for where they are in the text. Ref 6 at the end of the first paragraph of Definitions is about "Our main contention is that to explain the variation across firms’ abilities to adapt to the environment, it is necessary to take account of the degrees of cognitive flexibility in key decision-makers." This is clearly inappropriate and does not support the claims being made in the text. Preferrably use peer-reviewed basic research to support articles about scientific concepts. Ref 10 is clearly inappropriate for both instances where its used. Hyperlink for Ref 2 is broken. Ref 18 links to a copyrighted article stored on google docs, which appears to be a copyright violation (Elsevier would not be happy), the link should point instead to the article page on the journals website. In short, the reference section needs to be double-checked for hyperlinks and copyrighted work, and the authors need to make sure that the in-text references point to works that support the claims in the text.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   While the article is not very long, it is extensive enough to explain the major aspects and implications of the theory.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The authors have provided properly tagged own work to illustrate the article. These illustrate the article very well.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I will put the article on hold until the issues with the references are corrected.

1. Response:
2. Thank you for your thorough review, and for putting the article on hold.
3. Appropriate changes have been made regarding the second point. However, reference ten is only cited once and is relevant to the point made, as we refer to definitions within the article rather than the topic of the article itself. Obrien.sarah (talk) 16:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
4. Additionally, regarding the Elsevier article, this content is readily available as a .pdf online, and not simply through Google Docs. Would this still be considered a copyright issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obrien.sarah (talk • contribs) 17:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)