Cognition has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: December 21, 2025. (Reviewed version).

This  level-4 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Cognitive science (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cognitive science, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Cognitive scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Cognitive scienceTemplate:WikiProject Cognitive scienceCognitive science Philosophy: Mind High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Philosophy of mind Computer science Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Computer scienceTemplate:WikiProject Computer scienceComputer science Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Things you can help WikiProject Computer science with: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Computer science, computing, and Internet Cleanup : Computer science articles needing attention Computer science articles needing expert attention Copyedit : Computing Expand : Computer science Infobox : Computer science articles without infoboxes Maintain : Timeline of computing 2020–present Photo : Find pictures for the biographies of computer scientists (see List of computer scientists) Computing articles needing images Stubs : Computer science stubs Unreferenced : WikiProject Computer science/Unreferenced BLPs Project-related : Tag all relevant articles in Category:Computer science and sub-categories with {{WikiProject Computer science}} Psychology High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Neuroscience Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is currently the subject of an educational assignment.

Archives (Index)

2025/May 2025/July

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cognition/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Phlsph7 (talk · contribs) 09:17, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Magnesium Cube (talk · contribs) 22:30, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be doing the GA review for this article ->

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

   Logical layout and follows MoS.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Passes Earwig's Copyvio check (20.0%). Virtually no evidence of original research. >140 different inline citations referencing reliable sources (e.g. Cognition, An Introduction to Cognitive Psychology, Cognition: Exploring the Science of the Mind, Cognitive Psychology: A Student's Handbook, Complete Psychology, etc, etc. I have added bibcode, chapter-url, isbn, pages, article-number, pmc, pmid, to references via Citation bot. PASSES.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No evident instability in recent history. PASSES.

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

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

   Broad array of images (no copyright violations) with relation to the topic of cognition in their respective senses. PASSES.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Additional Remarks

• It would be better to remove the chapters from the References section for these two:
  • Katiyar, Sarthak; Katiyar, Kalpana (2021). "Recent Trends Towards Cognitive Science: From Robots to Humanoids". Cognitive Computing for Human-Robot Interaction: 19–49. doi:10.1016/B978-0-323-85769-7.00012-4. ISBN 978-0-323-85769-7.
  • Sweller, John (2011). "Cognitive Load Theory". Psychology of Learning and Motivation. 55: 37–76. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-387691-1.00002-8. ISBN 978-0-12-387691-1.

  Hello Magnesium Cube and thanks for reviewing this article! I'm not 100% sure what you mean by "remove the chapters". I saw that both sources are listed as journal articles but include an ISBN parameter, which is odd. I removed the ISBN parameters. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:21, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Your citations and referencing are GA status from here on out. MagnesiumCube (talk) 21:47, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Phlsph7, sorry for responding so late. When I wrote "remove the chapters", I think I meant to "remove the ISBN" or something similar to that- which you already have done (thank you)! MagnesiumCube (talk) 21:35, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• In 'Classical computationalism', This perspective helps researchers analyze... (referring to computationalism) is slightly promotional; it may imply that this specific model is objectively more helpful than others. Possible replacement could be Researchers using this perspective analyze... or something like that.

  Implemented. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:46, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the previous, the article is virtually unbiased.

• I think that a better first line would be Cognition refers to the mental activities involved in the acquisition and processing of knowledge instead of Cognitions are mental activities that deal with knowledge due to the fact that the former is a more widely recognized definition.

  The next sentence already talks about the acquisition and uses the term processess, so this would make the first paragraph sound more repetitive. See also MOS:REFERS.

• ...acquire, store, retrieve, transform, or otherwise use information could be ...acquire, store, retrieve, transform, and apply information. "Otherwise use" is a catch-all phrase that can be tightened to "apply".

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:40, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Cognitions are a pervasive part of mental life... could be Cognitive processes are pervasive in mental life. "Cognitions" (plural) is technically correct but "Cognitive processes" is more common.

  The term processes is used in the sentence before and afterwards, so using the term cognitions here helps avoid repetitions. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:40, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Perception organizes sensory information about the world, interpreting physical stimuli, such as light and sound... could be Perception organizes sensory information, interpreting physical stimuli such as light and sound... Removes unnecessary "about the world", since that is already implied.

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:40, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Thinking encompasses psychological activities in which concepts, ideas, and mental representations are considered and manipulated could be Thinking encompasses the psychological manipulation of concepts, ideas, and mental representations, which better improves the flow.

  I think it's good to keep the part about considering them instead of focusing exclusively on manipulation. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:40, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Visual perception, based on the detection of light, is a primary source of knowledge about the external environment could be Visual perception—the detection and interpretation of light—is a primary source of information regarding the external environment. Em-dashes provide a cleaner parenthetical definition than commas here.

  Implemented. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:40, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• ...the cocktail party effect, in which the brain concentrates on a single conversation while relegating the surrounding party noise to the background could be ...the cocktail party effect, where the brain isolates a single conversation while relegating surrounding noise to the background. "Isolates" is more precise than "concentrates on" for this specific phenomenon.

  I implemented a slight variation. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:40, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Others play an active role in monitoring and regulating ongoing processes, like changing a problem-solving strategy... could be Other metacognitive functions monitor and regulate ongoing processes, such as adjusting a problem-solving strategy... "Functions" is more descriptive than "others"; "adjusting" is more professional than "changing."

  The previous sentence refers to "Some forms of metacognition", so the term "others" should be fine in this context without the need to describe again. The term "adjusting" seems to imply that it is the same strategy in an adjusted form, which does not work with the second part of the sentences, which distinguishes the new from the old strategy. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:40, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Classical computationalism argues that cognitive processes manipulate symbols according to mechanical rules, similar to how computers execute algorithms could be Classical computationalism posits that cognitive processes manipulate symbols according to formal rules, analogous to algorithmic execution in digital computers. "Posits" and "analogous" elevate the academic tone; "formal rules" is the standard term in logic/CS rather than "mechanical rules."

  I implemented a slight variation to keep the text accessible. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:40, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The nodes are typically arranged in layers where information flows in one direction from earlier to later layers. could be Nodes are typically organized into layers, with information flowing from input to output layers. More concise; "earlier to later" is slightly vague compared to "input to output."

  Reformulated. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:40, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at recent changes and overall quality, Cognition definitively PASSES a GA test. Congrats!

Great, thanks for the review! Phlsph7 (talk) 10:09, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that there are cognitions about cognitions?

• ALT1: ... that cognition is a pervasive part of mental life, including perception, memory, thinking, and language? Source: Matlin, Margaret W. (2013). Cognition (8th ed.). John Wiley & Sons. pp. 22–23. ISBN 978-1-118-14896-9.
• ALT2: ... that cognitions are knowledge-related processes that acquire, store, transform, or apply information? Source: Matlin, Margaret W. (2013). Cognition (8th ed.). John Wiley & Sons. p. 2. ISBN 978-1-118-14896-9.
• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Three Schoolfellows

Phlsph7 (talk) 11:14, 22 December 2025 (UTC).[reply]

• Article is long enough, eligible (via GA), and in generally good shape with no evidence of copyvio. I was able to find a copy of the MIT encyclopedia online; the first hook checks out and is generally pretty interesting. QPQ checks out as well. All good to go! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 05:51, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]