Talk:Thomas Gilovich

More suggestions for improving this article
Having reviewed this for DYK and being really impressed with it, I have some other suggestions for taking this article further up the quality scale:
 * Be careful of peacock terms, such as using "key" as an adjective.
 * Technical terms should be italicised on first appearance: no need to put them in quotes.
 * Some of the descriptions of Gilovich's research say that he "showed that...". It would be better to say what the research was, i.e. to describe the experiment, since experiments can be interpreted more than one way, and although Gilovich is a mainstream researcher, there is not necessarily consensus agreement on all his interpretations. This is especially true, for example, of the section on Anchoring. The question to be answered is, "what research did Gilovich do?" not just "how did he interpret the results?" The paragraph on Illusion of transparency is much better in this regard.
 * Clustering illusion and Hot hand fallacy are both closely related to the Representativeness heuristic. Hopefullly there's a source that makes the connection and the link can be mentioned in the paragraphs.
 * Awards and recognition: ideally, we'd have a table including the years when these awards were made.
 * Do we know who Gilovich's doctoral advisor was? Not a high priority, but ideally it would be nice to have this in the infobox.
 * House style: consistently avoid first-person language. Psychologists study what people do, not what "we" do.

Some of these are quite minor points, but if we address them, I think this article could get very high on the quality scale. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 12:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)