Talk:3C-model
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
3H or 3C?
[edit]Which is it, 3H, or 3C? The article seems to waffle back and forth between the two without explanation, and it seems like one or the other has to be in error? If they can be used interchangably, this should be expressly stated. I would GUESS that 3H is correct, for "Head, Heart, Hands"... but the article title was established at 3C, so... I'm not sure what's going on here. Fieari (talk) 05:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Article is in a terrible state
[edit]In addition to the article not being clear what the name of the effect is, as User:Fieari explains above, the article has these grave problems:
- DOIs that aren't linked. The point of DOIs is to be links
- Some English that has been poorly translated from German.
- There's textbook- or essay-style text rather than Wikipedia style.
- The "Empirical research" section has a succession of broad statements about health outcomes that are each cited to single studies. Because claims are being made about "wellbeing" and "burnout", MEDRS-quality reliable sources are required.
- I've just taken a look at ref 2, which is used 3 times in the article, and it does not mention a 3C, 3K or 3H model at all. Maybe references have been used which are not about the topic of the article, which is a big red flag.
- At least one reference is being substantially misrepresented. Under the Development section, we are told that Ruth Kanfer "calls the result of this integration a 'radical, complementary new paradigm'". However, in the given source she does not use that phrase about anything, does not mention the 3C or 3H model, and only mentions the work of Kehr once.
- Most worryingly, almost all the cited papers are written or co-written by the person who proposed the model. For there to be a Wikipedia article, there needs to be coverage in secondary sources. Wikipedia can't have articles about every model or principle that's proposed in scientific papers.
I've made some small tweaks, but the whole article needs review and I'm not yet convinced it belongs here. MartinPoulter (talk) 17:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)