- The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.
The outcome of this request for deletion was to 
Delete. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Cognitive development
[change source]Only has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Many issues exist with this article, and it would take extreme efforts to salvage it. The topic basically duplicates child development. It reads like an essay. It is overly complex. This would need to be stripped down significantly to be a Simple English Wikipedia article Only (talk) 20:07, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.
Discussion
[change source]This page is part of a class project. We are still editing it, and will make it less complex. Kaitlynmindy (talk) 20:17, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- Complexity aside, it is still basically the same content as child development. The content also seems to be more of an essay than an encyclopedia article. If it were just a complexity thing, I wouldn't have nominated this. The problem is, your class/project will end soon, and we'll be left with this "article." Only (talk) 20:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete and move content off-wiki. This whole series of classwork has concerned me for some time. In particular, this article is a wholescale violation of our main objective on Simple. No, they won't be able to simplify it because they have already demonstrated that they don't have the language skills to do that. There are other articles by this group; none are satisfactory. We made a mistake in allowing them to put up pages which should have been developed on sandboxes, and heavily supervised. Secondly, as the page is written, it is covering mainly human child development, hence the overlap. Its original title of The evolution of child cognitive development, and the content, shows it was meant as a history of the study of child development by psychologists. We need to do something to put the brakes on this group. We just don't have the editors to correct all the problems they are creating. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:01, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- As the instructor responsible for this group, I have no reservations about deleting the content. These are editorial decisions, and yours to make. I do not disagree with your evaluation of this entry. Most (not all) articles were developed in sandboxes, on the CMU servers supporting APSWI and were supervised. That is to say, students were given feedback about complexity, grammatical errors, lack of appropriate citations, failure to adhere to format conventions, and tone. Feedback was generally delivered in emails. Some students responded to the feedback, some did not. Some students treated this as they probably would have a treated a more traditional term paper assignment. They waited until the last minute, took shortcuts, and it shows. In those cases, I've had little opportunity for feedback. I realize I am getting defensive here, but I don't think a wholesale indictment of the project is fair. The en.wikipedia method of releasing new articles for review before articles are published might be a better model than allowing direct publication/posting. Some students in the class developed new entries for English Wiki: some in the class had entries reviewed and released, others had entries quickly rejected; still others may graduate from college before their entries are reviewed, if that ever happens. Real world feedback (you are the real world, I am not) is far more informative to students than a grade can ever be. Deleting an article is very clear feedback. I understood the ethos of wikipedia to be that anyone can write an article; crowd-sourcing of writing and subject-matter expertise will ultimately ensure quality improvement, either by deleting or improving poor content. That seems to be what is happening here. Mringaterutgers (talk) 19:54, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- It's easy to underestimate how much work it takes to simplify language, yet still keep the essence of the content. The newcomer's usual mistake is to bring over too much too quickly from English wiki (or some other source), and then find the task of adjusting it takes more time and effort than they are willing to give. I'm sure we will try and edit the other psychology articles into acceptable shape. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:32, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- As the instructor responsible for this group, I have no reservations about deleting the content. These are editorial decisions, and yours to make. I do not disagree with your evaluation of this entry. Most (not all) articles were developed in sandboxes, on the CMU servers supporting APSWI and were supervised. That is to say, students were given feedback about complexity, grammatical errors, lack of appropriate citations, failure to adhere to format conventions, and tone. Feedback was generally delivered in emails. Some students responded to the feedback, some did not. Some students treated this as they probably would have a treated a more traditional term paper assignment. They waited until the last minute, took shortcuts, and it shows. In those cases, I've had little opportunity for feedback. I realize I am getting defensive here, but I don't think a wholesale indictment of the project is fair. The en.wikipedia method of releasing new articles for review before articles are published might be a better model than allowing direct publication/posting. Some students in the class developed new entries for English Wiki: some in the class had entries reviewed and released, others had entries quickly rejected; still others may graduate from college before their entries are reviewed, if that ever happens. Real world feedback (you are the real world, I am not) is far more informative to students than a grade can ever be. Deleting an article is very clear feedback. I understood the ethos of wikipedia to be that anyone can write an article; crowd-sourcing of writing and subject-matter expertise will ultimately ensure quality improvement, either by deleting or improving poor content. That seems to be what is happening here. Mringaterutgers (talk) 19:54, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
This request is due to close on 20:07, 14 December 2013 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.