Talk:Disposition effect/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 17:21, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this. I've copyedited slightly, so please revert if necessary. I removed the two "See also" links in prospect theory; those hatnotes are used for situations where there is no natural link to a subarticle that treats the section topic in more detail. That's not the case here.

My initial comment is that the article is poorly structured. The lead should summarize the article, but there is quite a bit of information in the lead that is not in the body of the article; in fact the article is written as if the first sentence is the lead. I think this structural issue needs to be fixed before the review can proceed.

A couple of other comments from a quick glance through:

Why is an unpublished master's thesis a reliable source for our purposes?
Why are cognitive dissonance and endowment effect in the "See also" section? They're only loosely connected with this topic.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:21, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meatsgains: are you planning to respond? I'll wait another week and will fail this article then if I don't hear from you. If you need more time, let me know. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meatsgains:I see you're working on the article, so I'll hold off for a bit; no hurry. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:17, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your patience. Will you take another look? Meatsgains (talk) 01:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; it might be a day or two as I'm now in the middle of a couple of other reviews. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The lead does now summarize the article, and I think you were right to remove the unpublished master's thesis. At the moment the article is not GA quality.

There are a lot of long quotes; see this version, in which I marked them in bold -- they're the majority of the article, except for the section on prospect theory (which is not the primary topic), and there's a long quote even there. We should be putting this information into our own words, not just assembling quotes from the sources.
Any quotes that we do have should be cited directly after the end of the quote. Here that's a minor point because most of them should go.
The whole of the first paragraph of "Prospect theory" has no citation.
The citation to [1] is odd; this seems to be just a collection of quotes. Who wrote that page, and why is it a good source? Shouldn't we be going to the textbooks that discuss this rather than a quote list on the web with no surrounding discussion?

I'm afraid I'm going to have to fail this, rather than put it on hold; there's really not much here beyond the quotes. For this to reach GA it needs to have a reliably sourced definition and discussion, in our own words. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:34, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]