Talk:IQ classification/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Ulflund (talk · contribs) 07:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi WeijiBaikeBianji, I will review this article. On the first read-through it looks like a well-written and well-sourced article. Below are some initial comments intended as suggestions rather than demands. I will go through the list of criteria more systematically in a few days.

Ulflund (talk) 07:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The lead section is very long. With about 20000 characters of prose the suggested length would be 2 to 3 paragraphs according to WP:LEAD. Maybe some of this content (specifically the second paragraph) can be moved to an introduction or background section just following the table of content.
 * There are many tables in this article and hard to quickly compare them. How about making a larger table with the most used classifications to make comparisons easier? It could e.g. look something like this (but with more rows):
 * In the first paragraph, about the Genetic Studies of Genius, the result is obviously an instance of regression towards the mean. That is worth mentioning.
 * In the section about the Wechsler Intelligence Scales, the first table is identical to a part of the second table. Can't these tables be combined?
 * There is an inconsistency in the capitalisation of the classification terms in different tables. Is this to follow the original sources or just a mistake?
 * Why are concepts like halo effect, mental age, gold standard and IQ put within quotation marks instead of being linked?
 * The table of Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scales 1958 Classification is identical to the one above it, so it is not necessary to repeat it.
 * The table of Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scales 1958 Classification is supposed to be based on a normal distribution but is asymmetrical. 128 is closer to 100 than 65 but still has the same percentage included. How is this possible?

Two more comments: Ulflund (talk) 02:28, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I cannot find a motivation for why these classifications are used instead of just the IQ values from which they are derived. That would be nice to have in the lead.
 * The section Variance in individual IQ classification doesn't give any quantitative numbers on the variance. Some number on the repeatability of some test or the correlation between different tests would be good.


 * Thanks for your comments, especially those about restructuring the lede. Thanks too for the suggestion of additional wikilinks--I will look at those articles. Some of the details of the tables include empirical distributions of IQ scores actually observed in the norming studies, which illustrates how even best efforts in test construction do not always produce exactly symmetrical categories. I'll ponder some of the other questions you raise about what is mentioned and what is not mentioned, and update the article after sleeping on it (and going on a day trip out of town) here. I appreciate the detailed comments. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:10, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Ulflund (talk) 02:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I really like the reference system with links to the bibliography and quotations to support claims. References 95 and 97 do not link down to their corresponding entries in the bibliography and reference 96 doesn't have one.
 * The links to the layman summaries for these references seems to be dead:
 * The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence (http://www.cambridge.org/gb/knowledge/isbn/item6173718/) both in the reference list and the bibliography.
 * Clinical Assessment of Child and Adolescent Intelligence (http://www.springer.com/psychology/child+%26+school+psychology/book/978-0-387-26299-4)
 * The Measurement of Adult Intelligence (http://www.apa.org/pubs/books/4320121.aspx)
 * The external link for Beyond the Flynn Effect is also not working

I'm happy to pass this as good article. Well done. Ulflund (talk) 03:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)