Talk:Motivation/GA1

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

Reviewer: Maxim Masiutin (talk · contribs) 16:38, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Phlsph7! I started the review and will complete in 1-2 days. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 10:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for doing this review. I look forward to hearing your feedback. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * On wikilinks, my concern is that the article links terms that are understood by most readers who are interested in the contents of the article, up to the point of violation of the rules regarding linking specified in the Manual of Style. According to the rules, both underlinking and overlinking should be avoided. I didn't find any instances of underlinking, i.e., places where a term had no link, which could help the readers understand the article more completely. However, there were some instances of overlinking. For example, there were wikilinks on terms such as psychology, philosophy, health, criminal law, education, economics, perfection, justice, beauty, truth, brain damage, addiction (wikilink over a word addict – simply "drug addict" could have been used for clarity and without a wikilink), manager, health care, Coach (sport) (used in context of athletes on training plans), politics, and democracy (or democracies). According to the Manual of Style, overlinking detracts from the flow of the article and makes it harder to read. It also clutters the text with unnecessary blue links that may distract the reader from the main topic. Therefore, I suggest you remove the wikilinks from the terms that are common knowledge, not directly relevant to the article's subject, or do not give essential definitions in the context of the motivation in particular. For example, the terms goal and behavior may be important to understand the material on motivation, but the terms education or economics may not. There are no set dictionaries or guidelines for determining which terms are common knowledge or relevant, so you may have to use your own discretion or consult other editors for feedback if they can provide it promptly, as we must complete the review in at most seven days; besides that, I would like to explain why overlinking is a problem: it can make the article look less professional and authoritative, as it suggests that the terms are not well-defined or explained in the text, or a complex synonym is used when there is a simple one. Overlinking can also make the article less accessible and less user-friendly, as it forces the reader to either ignore the links or follow them to other pages that may not be relevant or helpful—it can also create maintenance issues, as the links may become outdated or broken over time, as it is the case in the article when the links are missing and are being implicitly (i.e., without letting the user know explicitly) redirecting to the topics that are different. For example, the wikilink amotivation gets redirected to Amotivational syndrome. While amotivation is a term that is the one contrary to motivation, i.e., as the article tells, it "is a state of apathy or listlessness", when we click on it, we get to "a chronic psychiatric disorder", that is a chronic disorder rather than a mere state. Also, please try to avoid using the piped wikilinks whenever possible because using piped wikilinks can sometimes lead to confusion if the displayed text significantly differs from the actual article title, making it harder for readers to anticipate what content they will find upon clicking the link. It's better to use clear and direct language that accurately reflects the linked article's content—a careful review of the necessity and relevance of each wikilink is crucial. Removing excessive links will streamline the article, making it more accessible and easier to navigate. It's also important to ensure that the remaining links are up-to-date and relevant. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 21:46, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the detailed explanation, I removed the links in question. It's often not trivial to decide how difficult or relevant a linked article is so please let me know if you encounter more cases of overlinking. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! When splitting my message, please copy the signature that was after the whole message to the end of each section, like I did in my past few edits of this page Talk:Motivation/GA1 (see the page history of Talk:Motivation/GA1) Maxim Masiutin (talk) 13:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Roger that. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Phlsph7 Thank you, just removing the wikilinks from the terms I mentioned and addressing issues with pipes should be ok. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 13:10, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * On grammar, I have concerns about the sentence, "Motivational states are characterized by the goal they intend to achieve as well as the intensity and duration invested in realizing their goal"?
 * This sentence is hard to understand because a question arises: "How can intensity or duration be invested in the goal?" Intensity or duration isn't something to invest in. I understand that investing means devoting time or effort. But still, "intensity" per se cannot be invested: something can be invested with specified intensity, but not the intensity per se, so that with duration. The phrase "invested in" may not be the best choice of words to describe the relationship between intensity, duration, and motivational states. Perhaps a better way to phrase it is: "Motivational states are characterized by the goal they aim for, as well as the intensity and duration of the effort devoted to the goal" (if I understood correctly). Also, the next sentence, although grammatically correct, is hard to understand. I understood that different motivational states have different degrees of strength: strong states influence behavior more strongly than weak states, but we have to write it down clearly, so it should be easy to read and understand. I also reviewed the works that you referenced, i.e., the works that aim to back up these sentences, and found out that they don't use such complex language as that. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 21:46, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I implemented your suggestion for the first sentence. I split the second sentence into two and expanded the explanation of its second part in the hope of making this point clearer. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I viewed the article on a mobile application and a desktop computer, and the graphics were not clear on the mobile device. Whereas on the desktop computer, the graphics had adequate captions displayed, on the mobile phone device, it was a header image displaying sitting girls learning with a description of that photo itself ("Schoolgirls sit in the girls' section of a school in Bamozai, near Gardez, Paktya Province, Afghanistan. The school has no building; classes are held outdoors in the shade of an orchard" (still the weather is fine and I wanted my classes have been carried this way–the weather is fine, and there is no rain or strong wind or blizzard and snow)) rather than how it related to motivation ("Motivation is relevant in many fields and affects educational success…"). Therefore, I suggest that the graphics use in the article should be improved to make it more clear and consistent on both mobile phone and desktop devices, in particular, the very first image, so that the captions should explain how the graphics relate to the topic of motivation, not just describe the images themselves—that is what is described on a mobile phone if viewing the article with an Android Wikipedia application: preferably, the graphics should be relevant and informative, not just decorative or filler. Still, the image description doesn't seem to be adequate anyway, showing that there are boys on the third row, not just girls, suggesting that it is a school with children of both sexes, not just girls are present, as mentioned in the image description; therefore, the image description does not seem to be correct. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 21:46, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I couldn't reproduce your results. If I open the mobile page, which is present at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivation, I get the same caption as with the regular page found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivation. The caption you got is from the file on wiki commons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Schoolgirls_in_Bamozai.JPG. This file is used on several pages and they are not all associated with motivation. So I don't think we should change the caption of the wiki commons file. On possible workaround would be to duplicate the wiki commons file and add a new caption to the duplicate. I'm not sure if this would work since wiki commons usually does not allow duplicates to be uploaded. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Phlsph7 We can consider this issue technical that is s not explicitly related to the article content, we can set it apart for now and take back to it later, because it falls outside the GA criteria. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 13:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * As for the prose, according to the Good Article Criteria #1, a Good Article should be well-written, and the prose should be clear. My understanding is that by prose, the ordinary language people use in speaking or writing is understood so that this requirement is intended to make the language in an article nominated for GA easy to understand, without unnecessary grammatical complexity: the text should be easy to read without the need to re-read a sentence few times before one understands the meaning—this is what makes the prose clear and effective.
 * There are additional questions on completeness that can arise after reading the article: what are the details on different types of motivation mentioned in the article? The article briefly mentions intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, biological and cognitive, intrinsic and extrinsic, etc., but it does not explain how do cultural factors influence motivation—understanding how cultural norms, values, and societal expectations impact motivation would provide valuable insights: the article mentions cultural influences, but does not explain that; however, this is very important in our multicultural word. What role does self-determination theory play in motivation? Elaborating on this theory, which emphasizes autonomy, competence, and connection, could enhance the article's depth. The article only mentions this in a very technical tone but does not give easy-to-understand examples or explanation. How does motivation change across different life stages? Does motivation evolve over a human lifespan? Considering motivation in childhood, adolescence, adulthood, and old age would provide a comprehensive view. What is known so far on ethical implications of using motivation in marketing and advertising—discussing the fine line between motivating consumers and manipulation would be thought-provoking and interesting to read, as this topic may be very important and interesting. The link between emotion and motivation is not adequately covered. You've only referred to the work "Motivation and Emotion" (Gorman 2004) to back up the following claims: "Theories of motivation are frameworks or sets of principles that aim to explain motivational phenomena. They seek to understand how motivation arises and what causes and effects it has as well as the goals that commonly motivate people". However, these claims do not mention anything specific to emotions, such as that emotions can have a profound impact on motivation, i.e., that positive emotions, such as excitement and joy, can enhance motivation. In contrast, negative emotions, such as fear and anxiety, can hinder motivation, and understanding and managing emotions is crucial for maintaining motivation—this is not explicitly stated in the article, or did I overlook something? The article also doesn't seem to mention the relation between motivation and self-efficacy adequately; it only barely mentions that (quote): "Two additional factors identified by goal-setting theorists are goal commitment and self-efficacy. The former expresses the idea that a goal can provide more motivation if a person is strongly dedicated to achieving it", but stops on that; however, my understanding is that self-efficacy devotes more space when it comes to motivation because self-efficacy refers to an individual's belief in their own ability to successfully complete a task or achieve a goal, i.e., the concept closely related to motivation: while the article defines motivation as an inner state causing goal-directed behavior, it doesn't It plays a significant role in motivation, as individuals who have high self-efficacy are more likely to be motivated to take on challenging tasks and persist in the face of obstacles. Please also consider explaining goal specificity: while the article mentions the importance of goals in motivation, it does not explicitly discuss the role of goal specificity: are the goals specific or vague, and how does it affect motivation and the ability to reach goals, probably, setting specific, challenging goals can increase motivation and performance compared to vague or easy goals.
 * Apart from that, the article is OK. The lead is OK and doesn't use overly complex terms improperly (i.e., without wikilinks and explanation); there are no concerns or other violations of the criteria when it comes to style, apart from those concerns that I mentioned; the article is verifiable using the references provided, it does not contain original research, there are no copyright violations (I searched with Temurin and copyleaks.com). Apart from what I mentioned, the article is broad in coverage. The article is neutral, stable and illustrated. The media is properly tagged with their copyright statuses, and the media is relevant to the topic (apart from what I mentioned about the very first photo). Good job, I am looking forward to hearing from you on the issues I raised. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 21:46, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the many expansion ideas. I made an attempt to implement most of them, please let me know what you think. I tried to keep the discussions concise since the article stands already at 7225 words readable prose size and it's very easy with articles on broad topics like this one to get lost in details. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:52, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I will review your changes later today. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 13:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I have reviewed the article and now it meets the GA criteria. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 15:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Please also consider mentioning physiological aspects of motivation (physiology of higher nervous activity), the current state of research role of neurotransmitters such as dopamine in motivation (if addressed by significant secondary sources), as the article mostly cover psychologigal aspects of motivation, but not the physiological ones. The research of scietific studies in psychology is also worth mentioning probably, in a way similar to how it is done in https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2009/01/22/motivating-minds -- maybe research directions section should be covering research if that is mentioned in significant sources. Maybe motivation in culture, such as poetry, songs, is worth mentioning. If you think that this is irrelevant, please explain on the talk page in a separate sections, not in the GA review page. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 13:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You will be able to implement these suggestions later, the lack of mentioning of physiological aspect of motivation does not prevent the article to be considered complete enough to meet the GA criteria; however, for FA, probably, physicological aspects should also be covered. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 15:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You nominated the article for GA in the category of "Culture, sociology and psychology"; culture can be mentioned in works such as poetry and songs, while sociology and psychology is already covered sufficiently in the artilce, however, please consider that besides psychlogy there are physiologica aspects of motivation, such as dopamine in neurons, but you will be able to improve it later. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 15:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The current edition of the article conforms to GA criteria; the GA review aims to be a lightview process, the article should not be perfect - it should be just good enough to satisfy the criteria, and it is not satisfies all the GA criteria, thank you. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 15:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC)