Talk:Cross-cultural differences in decision-making

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cross-cultural differences in decision making/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hchc2009 (talk · contribs) 10:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I've identified some issues below; the article has real potential, but there's some work to be done. There are some other, smaller bits to address, but I'm putting the review on hold until we've worked through the broad issues. If you've got any questions, feel free to ask them - I'll do my best to ensure that the article gets through the review! Hchc2009 (talk) 18:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct;

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

• Worth taking a look at the guidance at MOS:HEAD. Many of the section headings are quite long and repeat (effectively) part of the article title, e.g. "Cross cultural variances developed as a result of differences in values, beliefs, and philosophies". You could trim this down, for example, to "Impact of values, beliefs and philosophies". Hchc2009 (talk) 17:31, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
• Have a read through MOS:LEAD. You'll want to get the subject of the paragraph into the first sentence, without wikilinks in the bold part, e.g. something like, "Cross-cultural differences in decision making explain how individuals from different cultural backgrounds plan and take action in a variety of contexts and at a range of levels. People all over the world engage in these activities. It is vital to be aware of the underlying cross-cultural differences in decision-making as it can be a great contributing factor to efficiency in cross-cultural communications, negotiations, and conflict resolution..." or something like that.

Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;

• I think there's a basic error in a number of the citations. If you look up something like "Newson, Lesley (2010). Cultural Evolution and the Shaping of Cultural Diversity. New York, London: The Guilford Press. pp. 454–477. ISBN 978-1-59385-444-7.", you find there's no such book; you're citing a chapter in a book, which needs the full title and editor as well as the chapter title (otherwise no one can find it!). Hchc2009 (talk) 10:24, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;

• Various parts are missing citations; e.g. "This leads to the building of implicit attitude, values, and beliefs, which are hard to spot. They become apparent when individuals or decision-making models from different cultural backgrounds are compared.", most of "The theories of origin of cross-cultural differences in decision-making", "Cross cultural variances developed as a result of differences in values, beliefs, and philosophies", etc.
• I'd suggest being more specific in the references in terms of the page references. Where there are (e.g.) 20 pages or so in an article, it can be really useful to be specific about where the particular point is referenced in the piece.

(c) it contains no original research.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

• The article seems quite heavily focused on cognitive psychology. Are you happy that it sufficiently reflects other traditions, e.g. cultural anthropological thinking on the topic?

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Illustrated, if possible, by images:

• Is there the potential for illustrative images, given the range of cultural topics and groups being discussed here?

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Other stuff to improve

The article itself is well-written.

However, it needs more categories added to it. There was only one category, "Cognitive psychology", and no external links. Additionally, very few articles link to it. Epicgenius^{(talk to me • see my contributions)} 12:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

General Review

I strongly agree with the strengths and weaknesses of this article that the “GA Review” addressed. The main topic was effectively explained and included many forms of credible evidence that was cited below. I do think the article could improve its visual appeal, depth on the subtopics, and clarity in the beginning of the article. I think the “Over-generalization in research on decision-making” paragraph was overexplained and distracting from the main idea. Overall, I thought this article was very informative. Hopekshannon (talk) 22:03, 24 January 2020 (UTC)