Talk:Illusory truth effect/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Wugapodes (talk · contribs) 06:30, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will review. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 06:30, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
See 1, 5, and 6

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
See 2, 4, and 7
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:
See 3

C. No original research:
See 3
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
See 5

B. Focused (see summary style):
See 6 and 7
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
On Hold 7 days

Comments

If the comment is numbered, it must be addressed for the article to pass, if it is bulleted, it's an optional suggestion or comment that you don't need to act on right now.
When I quote things, you can use ctrl+f to search the page for the specific line I quoted.

I'm still rather confused about what the effect is. The article as it stands just seems to be a list of loosely connected psychology papers. While the initial study's methodology is extensively discussed, adequate description of the results and discussion of them are lacking. The authors found an effect but how did they, or other subsequent studies, explain why this effect occurs at all. The closest the article gets to explaining the psychological basis of this effect is one sentence about hindsight bias which left me more confused than informed. There's a second sentence, separated by an unsourced paragraph on a different topic (see number 3), that cites the exact same source, and gives slightly more information but no more clarity
Equally pressing is the vagueness and puffery of much of the article. "One science writer", "some researchers", who are these people? "essentially replicated the original study" What does "essentially" mean and what makes it not a full replication? "The truth effect plays a significant role in various fields of activity", "Examples of the truth effect can be found everywhere." yet only three examples are given to substantiate those two claims. Conversely, much of the references to papers are far too specific w/r/t the number of authors named in the text: "Eryn J. Newman, Mevagh Sanson, Emily K. Miller, Adele Quigley-McBride, Jeffrey L. Foster, Daniel M. Bernstein, and Maryanne Garry" I have a 15" screen and this takes up half of it, it would be far more easily read if it were referenced like most multiauthor papers as Newman, et al..
The second paragraph of the Hindsight Bias section seems to be entirely original research, and in the Cato instance fails to cite the "one study" it refers to.
Only one of the alternative names is mentioned in the prose; where do the others come from? Why do different researchers call it different things?
The study on it's relation to "truthiness" positions itself as showing that the truth effect is impacted by more than simple repetition but contextual information surrounding it. In fact, the study it cites says as much in its abstract: recollection of sources can hinder the truth effect and that memorability of sources is important for whether the truth effect occurs or not. This important aspect of the effect is obscured by opaque quotes.
More generally, the article has an issue with overusing quotations where summary and paraphrasing of information would be more useful and accessable.
The lead doesn't adequately summarize the content of the article, and in fact contains information not elsewhere mentioned in the text.

Discussion

3. The content contained in this section is supported in the reference provided at the end of the section [1]. Can you be more specific? Meatsgains (talk) 01:54, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct, my bad on that one. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 22:47, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

4. Would you suggest adding reliable sources using alternative names or removing the variations all together from the lead? I can't seem to find information as to why there are so many alternative names. Meatsgains (talk) 02:01, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the changes you made are good, those seem to be the two main names and they don't cause much of a readability problem. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 22:47, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Results

On hold for 7 days, with a possible extension provided progress is being made. I have a number of reservations about whether these issues can be addressed in that time, but considering this article has been waiting for a review for almost a year I want to give it a chance before it gets sent back into the pool. If you have questions or comments I'm happy to discuss. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 08:06, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a bunch was changed on the 5th if you want to give this another look. Wizardman 02:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Listed as a Good Article @Meatsgains: Sorry for taking so long with this, I took it up at what turned out to be a bad time in real life and wound up forgetting about it. Regardless, looking at your changes I feel confident in promoting the article to GA status. That said there is certainly room for improvement, and as you'll see I made a few changes that I hope improve the article (but obviously, feel free to revert), but I am satisfied that the article meets the GA criteria. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 22:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Wugapodes: Thanks! Much appreciated. Meatsgains (talk) 02:08, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]