Talk:Availability heuristic/GA2
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Delldot (talk · contribs) 03:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi POYNOR, I notice you've only made one edit to the article. Are you interested in helping to improve it based on my suggestions? If not, I'll just leave a short review here, then fail the article in a week if you don't address the items in it. If so, we can take as long as you like to work on it, and I can help you however you need. I will make several passes through the article and leave new comments each time.
Here are some preliminary comments:
- The lead should be expanded to summarize the whole article--every section should be summarized.
- WP:MOS discourages use of second person: For example, if someone asked you whether your college had more students from Colorado or more from California, under the availability heuristic, you would probably answer the question based on the relative availability of examples of Colorado students and California students. If you recall more students that come from California that you know, you will be more likely to conclude that more students in your college are from California than from Colorado.
- WP:Good article criteria call for images where possible. Maybe a graph of correlation between ease of thinking of examples and people's estimates of how likely events are? Tables are good too. Also, you can use images to illustrate some of the examples, e.g. the paragraph that talks about shark attacks in the media, you could add an image (e.g. from commons) of a highly publicized shark attack.
- In a study by Schwarz et al., participants were asked to describe either 6 or 12 examples of assertive or unassertive behavior. Were they asked to describe general characteristics? Or to look at their own behavior and then pick out examples there? I think the last sentence doesn't adequately explain what is going on with this experiment, why this demonstrates the availability heuristic.
- Secondary sources are better than primary ones. Try to find reviews rather than original studies. This is not necessary for GA criteria, but a good rule to follow to improve the article.
- This example also needs further explanation: Research in 1992 used mood manipulation to influence the availability heuristic by placing participants into a sad mood condition or a happy mood condition. People in the sad mood condition recalled better than those in the happy mood condition, revealing that the power of the availability heuristic changes in certain conditions why did the sad mood condition lead to better recall?
- Use non-technical terms and language that any layperson can understand. It will probably be a layperson with no previous understanding of the field who reads an encyclopedia article on it. For example, explain (or better, replace) technical wording, e.g. interactional desirability, and adding high concrete or high contextually distinct details into the crime stories
- What is "example bias"? I can't find it in a Google search.
- the paragraph about Reagan and Mondale needs to be explained more to be clearer: what were the conclusions and why?
Ok, that's all I got for now. This article is a really good start. There's a lot about this article that I love. But I won't lie, it will be a big job to improve this enough to GA status. Fixing the items here will be a start, but won't immediately mean it passes. But if anyone wants to take this task on I'm happy to help however I can. delldot ∇. 03:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Both the nominator and main writers haven't edited in months, so probably best to just fail this. Wizardman 17:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)