Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Ideasthesia/1

Ideasthesia

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Ideasthesia/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • Most recent review
 * Result: While there is a lack of clear consensus here, the discussion of neutrality at Template:Did you know nominations/Ideasthesia and the lack of keep responses here will serve as reason for delisting DragonZero  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 07:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

The article was elevated to GA status in January 2015, the primary contributor to this article nominated this article for DYK ( Template:Did you know nominations/Ideasthesia ), where issues not addressed in the GA Review by  were brought up and and discussed by, , , , , myself, and more specifically by , who brought up the WP:COI and WP:PRIMARY issues. Due to these unresolved issues did not pass the nomination. Therefore, as these issues effect Criteria #2 & Criteria #4 of WP:GACR, I am opening up this article to community reassessment.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Responding to ping. On a very superficial evaluation, this seems way too much of a pet neologism. I summon who I believe will have a good handle on evaluating uptake beyond the term's originator. EEng (talk) 04:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This isn't my academic field. All I can do is look at Google Scholar, and count. (I suppose you could say that looking at such indexes and counting is one of my  academic specialties, more pompously  known as bibliometrics!) The listing for ideaesthesia shows only 27 uses in all of the scientific literature, and all of them in articles that rather few people have cited. There's an alternate spelling, and the [ideasthesia listing for "ideasthesia"] shows even fewer. And one of them says they got the term from the WP article!  Looking at theGScholar results for Danko Nikolić, he has some very highly cited papers, but none of them are on this. There's enough to make this more than FRINGE, or subject to deletion as a neologism,  but the article gives the mistaken impression that it's a widely-used term.   To say "However, most phenomena that have inadvertently been linked to synesthesia, in fact are induced by the semantic representations i.e., the meaning, of the stimulus[2][3][4][5][6] rather than by its sensory properties, as would be implied by the term synesthesia" is not really justified. It should read, "According to some workers [2][3][4][5][6], most phenomena....   " The general statement can only be used when its accepted as such by major secondary quality review articles or standard textbooks,  unrelated to the originators.    DGG ( talk ) 04:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi all. I have been mentioned as a protagonist in this but am not sure that I have much more to add on top of what has already been said. I think I would only reiterate the comments that I made here. Cheers Andrew (talk) 04:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I have made the change proposed by DGG. Please do not destroy the page on ideasthesia. This would be quite a loss. I am willing to improve it to whatever degree you may find necessary. (Danko (talk) 15:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC))
 * right now the only question is the article's status as a Good Article. Given DGG's analysis above the article seems safe for the moment against deletion on WP:Notability grounds, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone proposes having a debate on that. If such a debate does commence, than please, Dankonikolic, please don't take it personally. This happens a lot with new concepts and it's the way Wikipedia works -- must work -- for a lot of reasons. The best thing you can do is to get together as many indpendent sources citing and discussing this concept. I would recommend your listing them on the article's talk page, and explaining how it would be used in the article. Given that this is your new concept, people will be very on-guard about potential WP:Conflict of interest, so discussing things first will be best. Having said that, there won't be many people watching the page so you may get little response. Be very, very patient, and do not recruit colleagues to become editors to support you in this -- that will be very obvious and will lead to trouble so fast you won't believe it. Let it develop naturally over time -- and that may mean years. To be honest, the best thing for you may be to concentrate on your research and publishing in the usual journals, and forget about Wikipedia. Sooner or later some enthusiastic graduate student will start developing the article, and you'll be pleasantly surprised. Good luck! EEng (talk) 17:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There appears to be a consensus for delisting, am I correct?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:23, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Glad you replied. I'm the one doing the GAR communities for the past few months and intend to close this as no consensus for delisting. The main issues have been notability challenges and no one has outright said "This fails GA 2c" or the sorts. If there is something clearer, I could give it a different closing next week or so. DragonZero  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 18:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As I stated in the initial statement of opening this GA reassessment, it could be argued that it is not neutral due to conflict of interest of the primary editor of this article, in that the primary editor is also the author or co-author of a significant number of the reliable sources used in this article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:54, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oops, I need to clarify myself. I meant a clearer consensus to delist or keep on this page, aside from just the nominator. After a bit of thought, I'll take the DYK discussion and use it as a consensus for delisting. DragonZero  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 07:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Post-close comment: I believe the close (as delist) was appropriate. EEng (talk) 15:45, 23 May 2015 (UTC)