 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
needs work
editI rewrote the lead sentence, but making sense of the rest of the article is going to take a considerable amount of work. One concern is that this article seems to be describing the work on one academic, whose first abstract cited here talks about how difficult it is to describe this method. The problems with the article seem to be a combination of poorly written English and an obfuscatory tendency in this particular academic discipline and an over-reliance on primary sources. I've put a generic cleanup tag on the article to get some more eyes on it. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 18:11, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
- jmcgnh, I've been working on the article. It does seem that a weak grasp on the English language has been one of the issues for the page. GBFEE (talk) 21:21, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- GBFEE: thanks for your work on this. I am afraid I had not looked at the page again in the more than four years since I last tried to do something about it. Looking at it just now, I don't see that it meets my current ideas of notability for the sort of thing it is. To be notable, there has to have been more uptake in the relevant community and it would have been written about by others who are not in the initial circle of promoters. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 23:25, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- jmcgnh, it seems you tagged my username, but I didn't get an alert about it. That's okay. I'm watching the page for now. It's your assessment that we should delete the page? GBFEE (talk) 20:22, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- GBFEE, I don't know what the problem is that makes my attempts at notification not work. It has been an occasional problem ever since I started WP.
- I'm not at the stage where I would personally sponsor an AfD on this article; doing that would require some BEFORE work to see if I can find some better sources. Does the Google Scholar citation count of 354 mean a lot in this field? Does someone have a better description of what it does and how it is distinctly different from other approaches? Did Stack have some really innovative insight when this first started? When I try to read about it, my mind gets bogged down in education school jargon that strikes me as obfuscatory rather than clarifying. Perhaps that's just because it's hard, or is it some leftover of George W Bush's "Is our children learning?". — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 22:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oh, okay. And the alert worked this time. GBFEE (talk) 20:23, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- jmcgnh, it seems you tagged my username, but I didn't get an alert about it. That's okay. I'm watching the page for now. It's your assessment that we should delete the page? GBFEE (talk) 20:22, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- GBFEE: thanks for your work on this. I am afraid I had not looked at the page again in the more than four years since I last tried to do something about it. Looking at it just now, I don't see that it meets my current ideas of notability for the sort of thing it is. To be notable, there has to have been more uptake in the relevant community and it would have been written about by others who are not in the initial circle of promoters. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 23:25, 10 March 2022 (UTC)