Talk:Frog pond effect

New here

Hi there! I will be editing this article for a class, but as this is my first ever experience with Wikipedia, any and all advice/feedback is welcomed. Looking forward to it! Tnbphd (talk) 22:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I recommend you withdraw the GA nomination. The article is too actively changing to be considered, more revisions needed, some refs may not meet WP:MEDRS. David notMD (talk) 21:03, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

The GA nominator appears to have stopped editing as of 14 December. David notMD (talk) 14:03, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 19:22, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that people can achieve greater academic potential being a "big frog in a small pond" due to the frog pond effect? Source: (ref Davis 1966)
  • ALT1:... that the frog pond effect describes how it is better to better for our self-concepts for self-evaluation of competence to be a big frog in a little pond? Source: (ref Davis 1966)
  • ALT2:... that the frog pond effect describes how people have lower academic self-assessments when they are a "little frog in a big pond"? Source: (ref Davis 1966)

5x expanded by Tnbphd (talk). Self-nominated at 20:13, 1 December 2020 (UTC).

• Comment: The two proposed DYKs are too vague to entice DYK readers. Also, per the article, the result of the effect is having a lower self-perception when the immediate group of people around the person in question have high academic or other skills. David notMD (talk) 23:49, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
• Review: Starting review process. Valid 5X expansion. No copyright issues. Ref #8 does not work, and ref #17 is to a conference, which is considered unpublished, so should not be used as a ref. (Ref #21 had a doi that did not work. I replaced it, and did a bit more on formating the ref.) In Context section, last sentence of second paragraph does not make sense, and looking at the ref did not help. Competition entry section, first paragraph, second sentence is unclear. Second paragraph of Competition entry has nothing to do with frog pond effect, as it is not about self-assessment vis-a-vis peers, but rather a college application disadvantage for less than top-ranked students from a high achievement high school versus top-ranked students from an average high school. Please submit one or more DYKs that are more interesting and more in line with the article. After each DYK, identify the specific reference or references that support the DYK. David notMD (talk) 20:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the feedback! I have made your suggested edits to the references, reworded that last sentence of the context section, edited the competition entry section to be more clear and related, and edited the DYKs to be more interesting. Please let me know what additional feedback and edits would be helpful. Tnbphd (talk) 06:53, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Comment: In looking at the revised article, Context section, second paragraph, last sentence (and ref #7) has no obvious connection to the theory of Frog pond effect, and in my opinion should be deleted. Likewise, Context section fourth paragraph, ref #8 about INCOM establishes a self-assessment method, but it is not clear in the following sentence, resting on ref #9 (Wu 2018) that INCOM was used in this study (I do not have access to the entire article, as behind firewall). In Competition entry, a sentence has been added to the end of the second paragraph, with ref #10. The paragraph as a whole is NOT an example of "Frog pond effect." Does the ref actually support the last sentence being added" (The ref is behind firewall.)

Of greater importance to this DYK evaluation, the original DYK and ALT1 have been replaced. The newly proposed DYK is in no way supported by the content of the article, as the article is about self-evaluation, not "academic potential." I put a line through it. The new ALT1 is acceptable (with the copyediting I did). However, the proper way to describe a supporting source for a DYK is not to replicate the reference as a reference, but simply to point out where in the article text the supporting concept exists, and which ref(s), i.e., copy of text from article followed by (ref Davis 1966). I removed the references that were in place after the DYKs. Rather than replacing DYK content, create a ALT2, ALT3, etc. if warranted. David notMD (talk) 08:55, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks again!! I truly appreciate all your help with editing the article and submission for DYK. In response to your comments, I tried to revise the Context-second paragraph-last sentence to connect more to the frog pond effect as well as with the INCOM scale where I gave more information on the use for ref#9. Is there a way to make the article references not behind firewalls (by changing the redirect link)? As for the Competition Entry section, the second paragraph is meant to serve as an example of the real world impact of the frog pond effect in school admissions. For the DYK evaluation--thank you for clarifying how the changes, additions, and references are supposed to work! I will be sure to do that in the future (and with the added ALT2). Tnbphd (talk) 02:26, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

OK for journal articles to be behind firewalls as long as the editor using those refs is sure that the ref content supports the text. Finding a URL that goes to the complete article is preferred (but not required) because often seeing just the abstract is inconclusive. David notMD (talk) 07:18, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

• This article is a recent 5X expansion. ALT1 or ALT2 hook facts are cited inline and either hook could be used. The article is neutral and I detected no copyright issues. A QPQ is not required, as the editor has submitted fewer than five DYKs. David notMD (talk) 11:32, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

The Good Article nomination

The college student editor who created the article (User:Tnbphd) also nominated it for GA, but has not been doing any editing since 14 December. Strong possibility the editor will not return to participate in the GA process. David notMD (talk) 14:01, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Big-fish–little-pond effect

Do these two articles not cover basically the same concept? Ivar the Boneful (talk) 01:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Backep1 (talk) 15:27, 4 January 2021 (UTC)Backep1 (talk) 20:51, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Backep1 (talk · contribs) 20:51, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I am surprised the article can be considered good. The section "Racial diversity in schools" is to me unintelligible.Backep1 (talk)

The creating editor has not edited since December 14, and is unlikely to return to Wikipedia, as creating or improving an article was a college course requirement at UCLA. The assignment ended December 14. My involvement was that I took on the Did You Know review, and as a consequence, also edited the article (which I really shouldn't have). I have no training in social psychology, and no interest in improving the article. David notMD (talk) 01:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@Backep1: What's the status of this review? Are you intending to quick-fail? Instructions are at WP:GANI, but I'm also happy to help out as needed. I agree with David notMD that the nominator is unlikely to return. Edge3 (talk) 04:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@Edge3: Second 'ghosting', in that Backep1 has not made any contributions to Wikipedia since taking on this GA review (editor's first), and most recent edit prior to that was in July. The article may be better served during its descent into obscurity (20-30 viewings per day) if the GA nomination was removed rather than left as failed. David notMD (talk) 07:53, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@David notMD: 20-30 pageviews isn't that low, actually. I've worked on articles with fewer than 10 views per day, but maybe that's because I tend to work on areas of local interest. I'll go ahead and close this review as a quick-fail. I understand you were hoping to just revert the nom, but since the original editor submitted a valid GA nomination, I think a quick-fail is the quickest way for us to resolve this. (Otherwise, we'd have to go to WT:GAN to get this page deleted.) Edge3 (talk) 17:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Just to make sure that we follow the proper procedure, I'm just going to leave some closing comments below:

The original reviewer, Backep1, opened the review on January 3, 2021, but has not completed the review within the traditional 7-day period. The nominator, Tnbphd, has not edited any Wikipedia page for more than 30 days. Therefore, the nomination and review may both be considered abandoned. I am closing the review, and I believe quick-failure is appropriate under WP:GAFAIL because:

• the article has a valid cleanup banner: {{Lead too short}}.
• the article requires additional cleanup to comply with MOS:LEAD and MOS:WTW.

Edge3 (talk) 17:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I have no disagreement with the decision. David notMD (talk) 17:09, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Criticism as Praxis

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 February 2024 and 24 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gavin.mink (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Gavin.mink (talk) 18:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)