Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SAT/archive1

SAT
I nominate this article for Featured Article status because I believe it is good and reprsentative of what is good about Wikipedia in general. It has been peer reviewed and I have worked to address all of the reviewers complaints. I hope you agree. Note : This is a self-nomination. I have worked extensively on this article and have restructured much of it.--User:naryathegreat | (talk) 04:11, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Object - totally inadequate lead section and no references section. Please read What is a featured article. --mav 12:31, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't really understand what you don't like about the lead section. I've read What is a featured article thank you, why do you people automatically assume that I haven't?  Anyway, what references are there for the SAT?  None.  People don't write books about the test, period.  It has links to websites that comment about it at the bottom under Links (wow, imagine that) and inline reference markers.--User:naryathegreat | (talk) 12:49, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * People don't write books about the test, period. Actually, yes they do. (People write books about *everything*.) One I've read and that you might find useful is None of the Above, by David Owen. (Revised version: ISBN 0847695077.) Alas, I neither own it nor remember its content in detail. There are many more; you just have to be able to weed them out from all the study guides when searching. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:30, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * What I should have said was that the test has changed and that the books all concern the old SAT, from which the new one differs dramatically (a whole section has been added). I don't really want to go on and on about the old test; it's not really important anymore.--User:naryathegreat | (talk) 21:21, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Object - I don't think the lead is that awful, but the article is still not at a level deserving featured status. For example, this is a subject matter that generates a lot of numbers, score distributions, performance differences, etc.. The discussion should be backed up with this data, and it should be illustrated using graphs. Furthermore, there should be example questions.. Lots of room for improvement. Gmaxwell 14:47, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Well the problem is that the test just changed, if you'll notice, so no numbers are available yet. As for sample questions, they are copyrighted and that's a little different than using a logo.  I'm not sure if it qualifies as fair use.  I'd personally thought of adding my own that are similar, but I didn't want to uselessly lengthen the article.--User:naryathegreat | (talk) 21:08, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * That couldn't be more untrue. Without substantial statistical information schools would be unable to use the test to make decisions. For the GRE (which is also now a fairly new revision) there is a usage guide with all the statistical breakdowns, I haven't seen the corresponding paper for the SAT but I'm sure it exists.  Also, the 'old' test has been taken by millions of people and is still of substantial interest, as are the changes from the old to the new (and every other instance of change throught the tests history). For example, during the 2000 election Bush was faulted for having an SAT score that was somewhat poor by post 1994(?) standards but his scores were much better when considered fairly. We should include information that would help people compare old scores and new (as much as they are comparable) and discuss how the changes are thought to make the test more fair. As far as questions go, I wasn't trying to suggest that you plagerize actual questions, but it would be useful to include a few example new questions of substantially simmlar style (as is used in many of the study guides). It's not pointless... We should give the reader a good idea of what it is like to take the SAT.Gmaxwell 23:49, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * That's just it, schools don't have statistical information and they aren't ready to make decisions about it. I've talked to several that say they want to "watch and wait" about the results.  Statistical information for the new test is just not available.  For the old test, common score ranges are already in the article.  Also, for the same reason the schools are uncertain there is no real way to compare scores on the old and new tests, especially because the changes are so drastic.  Entire types of questions have been dropped, which dispite the College Board's strenuous denails, likely have changed the way people earn their score.  I'm not an expert, per se, but I do understand the basics behind these things.  As for the questions, I'd be happy to add some.--User:naryathegreat | (talk) 22:18, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Object Marginally adequate info. (who invented it? what's it cost? how many now take it?  who criticised it, and how?)  Sub-FAC writing quality. Sfahey 05:00, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Object and suggest further peer review. Far, far from comprehensive. The History section, especially, needs much more information -- on revisions to the test's form and subject matter, and changes in its adoption and use in academia. Criticism section also needs to be more thorough and neutral. Style needs a lot of improvement -- it doesn't read smoothly and large sections look like random gatherings of trivia. I concur that the lead section is inadequate. I've just now added a real References section with some books that I think (off the top of my head) will help provide more depth if anyone feels like investigating and using them to improve this article. -- Rbellin|Talk 05:36, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)