Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Birthday-number effect/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:55, 6 October 2017.

Birthday-number effect

 * Nominator(s): Edwininlondon (talk) 16:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Turns out people unknowingly prefer numbers from their birthday. I consider this the forgotten sibling of the name-letter effect which got FA status earlier this year. I look forward to your comments. Edwininlondon (talk) 16:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Images. There are none. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Support only a few issues. I enjoyed the name letter, glad to read the sequel.
 * "in other countries.[9][10][8][A]" Are we ordering footnotes, or most significant first?
 * "overall amount of numbers" I don't think "amount" is proper. I might say "quantity" instead.
 * "Japanese tendency to attend to negative features so as to eliminate them.[46]" I'm not quite sure what this means.
 * "can't" We shouldn't use contractions.
 * " However, young children do not apply this strategy yet and 7 does not come out on top in children of age eight and nine.[12]" I would cut "yet"--Wehwalt (talk) 00:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Wehwalt, for your time and support. I believe I have dealt with your points, but let me know if the one about the Japanese tendency is still insufficient. BTW, I must admit I suspect you smiled when you used a contraction to tell me not to use one. Edwininlondon (talk) 18:55, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47
This is a very interesting article, and a lot of a great work has been done here. Though I do have to admit that this effect does not apply to me (my birthday is on the 23rd and my favorite number is 47 lol). My review is completely focused on prose, and does not address anything with source use and reliability (which I will leave up to the source review). Once my relatively minor notes/comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. My comments are as follows:

Hope this helps out at least a little. Aoba47 (talk) 15:57, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * For the phrase (the Japanese psychologists Shinobu Kitayama and Mayumi Karasawa), I do not believe "the" is necessary.
 * For the sentence (By 2017 Kitayama and Karasawa's original study had been cited in over 300 scientific papers.), add a comma after "2017".
 * For the sentence (Throughout history societies have had numbers they consider special.), add a comma after "history".
 * For this phrase (the researcher Dietz), is Dietz this person's full name?
 * I would recommend using Bellos' full name when you mention him for the first time (i.e. Alex Bellos). Other instances where I think full names would be appropriate are the following - "Marketing researchers King and Janiszewski" and "Belgian psychologist Nuttin" - if the full names are known.
 * In this phrase (In 1985 Belgian psychologist Nuttin), add a comma after "1985". Make sure there are commas after the "In this date" construction as I have noticed a few more places that require commas, but I do not want to list every instance here.
 * "Name-letter effect" is linked multiple times in the body of the article.
 * Instead of "hiraganas", I would use "hiragana". Japanese does not use a plural form so using the -s construction here just looks weird. I am also a little hesitant about the descriptive phrase in front of it (each of the 45 Japanese alphabet letters) as it can be interpreted as saying that hiragana is the only part of the Japanese alphabet when there is also kanji and katakana. I would see if there would be a way to rephrase that part to avoid any confusion.
 * For this phrase (For the letter experiment they asked 219 Japanese undergraduate), add a comma after "experiment".
 * I am not certain about the way the paragraphs are split in the "Results" subsection. Is there any reason why the first sentence is made into a separate paragraph?
 * Please use the full names for these people: Blass, Schmitt, Jones, and O'Connell. Same goes for Bosson, Swann and Pennebaker and Koole, Dijksterhuis, and van Knippenberg. Just make sure that when you introduce someone for the first time in the article, that you include their full name. There a few other instances not mentioned, but I do not want to make my comments too repetitive at this point.
 * I am not sure about the policy related to this, but in the phrase (Blass, Schmitt, Jones, and O'Connell used US undergraduate students), I would use "United States" in full for the first instance the country is cited in the article and then use US for the rest of the instances just to make it clear what you are referencing.
 * Thanks ever so much for your detailed review. I believe I have dealt with all your points except for two remaining issues to discuss:
 * first names: if I knew the first names of all researchers then full names in first use would be good. As it happens, for 6 I can't find their first names: Dietz, Wiegersma, Blass, Schmitt, Jones, and O'Connell. Which is a lot less than I thought. So I could do it. My policy was to only give full names of the original two, and then just last name for everybody else. But I'm open to change it, although it does make for quite a mouthful at times: "Similarly, Jerry Burger, Nicole Messian, Shenabi Patel, Alicia del Prado, and Carmen Anderson investigated the .." What do you think?
 * US undergraduate students: I read the policy on MOS:US as you have to spell out the full country if other countries are listed, but should use abbreviated form elsewhere. I do indeed find "US undergraduate students" stylistically better.
 * Let me know your thoughts and thx again! Edwininlondon (talk) 18:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for addressing my points; this was a very interesting read. I have never heard of this before so it is cool to learn something new. I support this for promotion. If possible, I would greatly appreciate it if you could provide commentary on my current FAC. Either way, have a great rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 00:46, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

 * There are a couple of MoS formatting issues:
 * Where the citation is to a page range, the correct format is pp. not p.
 * Within page ranges, a ndash rather than a hyphen should be used (as in ref 58)
 * A large number of refs are affected by one or other or both of the above: 19, 27, 19, 30, 36, 38, 39, 45, 46, 49, 53, 58, 62, 78, 81 – possibly others.

Otherwise all sources look of appropriate standard and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 13:49, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking, Brian. I have fixed the pp and hyphen problems. Edwininlondon (talk) 20:39, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose Comments by Finetooth

 * A very interesting article, well-done. I liked its earlier companion article as well. Here are a few suggestions or questions, nothing big:


 * Lead
 * ¶3 "A study into the liking of products..." – Substitute "of" for "into"? I'm not sure you can study into something.


 * ¶3 "The name-letter effect has been replicated In dozens of follow-up studies in different languages, cultures and alphabets this name-letter effect has been replicated, no matter whether participants selected their preferred letter from a random pair, or picked the top six of all letters in the alphabet, or rated each individual letter." – Something's gone off the rails here. Delete the incomplete sentence that begins the sequence but retain the link to name-letter effect in the subsequent full sentence?


 * Results
 * ¶1 "only a 0.03 difference with the mean" – Perhaps "from the mean" rather than "with the mean"?


 * Application
 * ¶1 and 2. In two places, the citations need to be reversed from [63][36] to [36][63].
 * ¶1 Number Preference Task and Letter Preference Task appear here with initial caps, but in the preceding section they appear as "the number-preference task and the letter-preference task", all lower-case and hyphenated. Should they be the same throughout?
 * ¶3 "...recommend that the task involves both letter preference and number preference, that it is administered twice, and that the instructions focus on liking..." – I think that changing the verbs a bit to "...recommend that the task involve both letter preference and number preference, that it be administered twice, and that the instructions focus on liking..." would be preferable.


 * Wider implications
 * ¶3 "Over 200 participants of online survey..." – Insert "an", as in "an online survey"?
 * ¶4 "born on 14 May would get an ad with a DVD-player" – Maybe "ad for" rather than "ad with"?


 * Footnotes
 * Footnote B is supported by two citations, [18][5]. Those should be flipped to [5][18].


 * That's all. Finetooth (talk) 20:20, 1 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for reading and commenting, Finetooth. I believe I have addressed all your points. Edwininlondon (talk) 22:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Everything looks fine. I'm switching to support on prose, as noted above. Finetooth (talk) 02:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Closing comment: I noticed "He construed product names for a DVD", but I was wondering was this intended to be "constructed"? Maybe I'm missing something. In any case, it's not enough to hold up promotion. (Note: There was no image review as there are no images in the article) Sarastro1 (talk) 21:54, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Sarastro1 (talk) 21:55, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.