Talk:Belief bias/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: WriterArtistDC (talk · contribs) 21:14, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I would fail this article as it is, given its poorly written (terse) technical language and the reliance on primary sources that report the results of experiments. Reading some of the refs, there appears to be theoretical disagreement regarding these results based upon differing models of cognition (there is even disagreement regarding the appropriateness of name "Belief bias"), so there must be secondary sources to explain these theoretical differences.

@WriterArtistDC: As always, appreciate any and all feedback! So, just to clarify, in order to bring this article to GA status I will need to:

1. Tone down the language for the layman to understand
2. Provide additional secondary sources
3. Use secondary sources to explain the discrepancies of the results from the experiments and the name "Belief bias"

Look forward to hearing back and improving the page! Meatsgains (talk) 03:57, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the summary of the individual study results needs to give more details in layman's terms, and there needs to be secondary sources that address the different ways these results are being interpreted by different psychologists, most significantly those that are saying that "belief bias" is a misnomer because subjects are not using prior knowledge or analytical skills that gets in the way of the assigned task; they are ignoring the task altogether and reaction intuitively to the entire syllogism. Since people are not intuitive logicians, it is difficult for them to say nonsense conclusions are logically valid.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 04:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Status query

WriterArtistDC, Meatsgains, where does this nomination stand? I see that Meatsgains made some edits in late January and added a reference in early February, but nothing was posted here, and there doesn't seem have been the major work needed to address the issues raised. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:13, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the original issues I raised have not been fully addressed. There remains a citation needed tag in the Research section; and the significance of the Stipple etal (2011) article is not accurately described. The differences in response times reflect individual differences in the degree to which subjects relied upon heuristics vs. analytical thinking in their evaluation of the validity of the syllogisms presented. Rather than perform the requested task the low-logic group used the heuristic of evaluating the plausibility of the conclusion, and had both the fastest times and the greatest number of errors (the greatest bias).--WriterArtistDC (talk) 22:59, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Fail?

Should this GA review either be ended with a fail or put on hold? I am not interested enough in this isolated topic to make edits myself, and am instead looking at the main article Cognitive bias which can use some work. Also, I notice that in the literature the term used is Belief-bias effect which is more precise. Should the article be renamed or use the precise term in the content?--WriterArtistDC (talk) 13:58, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

WriterArtistDC, given the two options, unless the new section added a couple of days ago by a completely new Wikipedia editor has addressed all of your issues (and not introduced new ones), I'd recommend that you fail it. This review has been open for over two months, and the response from the nominator has been minimal. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:55, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, its definitely a Fail. The recent edit is more of the same, not written to give the average reader an understanding of the topic, although the opening is a bit better. Reading the style guideline, it is difficult to decide who an average reader might be; but I would assume Post-grad, which by the guideline of "one level down"; the writing should be for a college student. Yet much of the language has been taken directly from the primary research papers.

More than that there may be deeper problems. When I started the review I only read a sample of the cited works, but in following the three references used in the section on dual processing theory I found one paper that is too old (1977) to reflect current thinking; and two that are primarily on other topics (violence in children's TV, governance). This in spite of there being an article Dual process theory that could be linked/summarized to provide the needed context for the Belief bias article.

--WriterArtistDC (talk) 16:56, 6 April 2017 (UTC)