Talk:Learned industriousness

Article Review - Wikipedia policy adherence notes

Below shows how the text in the article adheres to Wikipedia policies.

Please add any relevant policies which should also be considered, below.

Any further reviewers, please add comments if more detail is required for any of the policy adherence notes below.

Policies checked in this review: WP:HOWTO WP:VER WP:NPOV WP:N WP:NEO WP:SYN WP:ADVERT WP:ESSAY WP:OPINION WP:ORIG WP:ENC WP:MOS

Policy	Comment	Policy quote	Evidence
Shortcode	Notes from 3rd parties	.	.
WP:NEO	.	Not a neologism	see here
WP:VER	.	Verifiable sources	.
WP:N	.	Notable	see here
WP:NPOV	.	Neutral	see here
WP:ORIG	.	No original research	see here
WP:ESSAY	.	No essays, no original thought or opinions.	.
WP:ADVERT	.	No adverts, no external links whatsoever.	.
WP:SYN	.	No synthesis of ideas.	.
WP:HOWTO	.	No guide-like sentences	.
WP:OPINION	.	No personal opinions	.
WP:LINKS	.	Acts as navigation within wikipedia and appears in secondary sources	.
WP:MOS	.	Manual of style - grammar conventions etc	see here
WP:ENC	.	Encyclopedic	.
WP:ESSAY	.	Not an essay - refs for each sentence, so not an essay.	.
WP:NOTPAPER	.	Keeping articles to a reasonable size is important for Wikipedia's accessibility.	.
.	.	.	.

Review edits

To bring into line with WP:MOS some minor edits to the style of the original article were necessary. No content was changed. For instance, grammatically, "Because" should not be the first word in a sentence as that would be a dangling participle.

A few very minor typographical errors were corrected.

Edit Example - Original

correlational study examined smokers and non-smokers levels of persistence using the Anagram Persistence Task (APT)

Edit Example - Grammatically correct

correlational study examined smokers' and non-smokers' levels of persistence using the Anagram Persistence Task (APT)

Edit Example - Now with better style

correlational study which examined the levels of persistence of smokers vs. non-smokers using the Anagram Persistence Task (APT)

Edit Example

Pedantic? Maybe. (Guilty as charged ;-) ♥ VisitingPhilosopher ♥ ^{talk ◊ contribs} 08:03, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Originality

Conforms to WP:ORIG when there is no original thought in the article and there are references to notable sources for all of the statements made in the article.

Neutrality

One constructive feedback item from this review - the article's balance would benefit from a specific "Criticism" section, which summarises any dissent about the Learned industriousness theory.

Review conclusion

An interesting article - well written, well informed and on a fascinating subject. A significant new addition which benefits wikipedia.

(An opinion from the article's first reviewer) - ♥ VisitingPhilosopher ♥ ^{talk ◊ contribs} 08:14, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Intro unclear

What does "Individuals with a history of reinforcement for effort are predicted to be generalize this effort to new behaviors" mean? Presumably a small error but it renders nonsense 86.132.193.15 (talk) 23:35, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Learned industriousness. 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:

Added archive https://archive.is/20130415184007/http://www.psichi.org/pubs/articles/article_103.aspx to http://www.psichi.org/pubs/articles/article_103.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 10:02, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]