Wikipedia:Peer review/Dunning–Kruger effect/archive1

Dunning–Kruger effect


This article failed the last GA review. The main flaws pointed out by the reviewer were that "the article misuses sources (violating WP:NOR) and engages in disputes rather than merely describing them (violating WP:NPOV)". I've made various changes to the article in an attempt to address these problems. I wanted to get some feedback before I renominate it, specifically on the following points. (1) Have these two problems been solved? (2) Are there other problems that should be addressed before a renomination?

Thanks, Phlsph7 (talk) 13:30, 2 March 2023 (UTC)


 * RE your first question, I think there are still some issues in the Significance section. My only other comment is that the lead is way too long (see MOS:LEAD). voorts (talk/contributions) 00:36, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello and thanks for reviewing this article! You are probably right about the length of the lead. I'll see what I can do about it. Could you go a little more into detail about the problems with the section "Significance" and how it should be changed? Phlsph7 (talk) 08:02, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I made a few modification to the section "Significance". Do you think that this solved the problem? Phlsph7 (talk) 08:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The section now seems to read more as an application of the D-K effect in various fields, rather than a discussion of its significance writ large. Maybe that section could be retitled as "Research findings" or something similar. When I think "Significance", I think, how did the introduction of the effect as a socio-psychological construct affect research or practice in various fields? voorts (talk/contributions) 22:21, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that the title "Significance" may be too wide. But I'm not sure that "Research findings" is the right title. The section is about how the Dunning-Kruger effect can impact everyday life on a practical level. The research findings measured in experiments are discussed in the section "Measurement, analysis, and investigated tasks". What do you think of the title "Practical significance"? Alternative titles would be "Real-life consequences", "Impact on everyday life", and "Influence on daily life". Phlsph7 (talk) 07:50, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, does this section consist of hypotheses about how the DKE plays out in real life? Or, are the arguments about pilots, emergency medicine, etc. backed up by experimental data? voorts (talk/contributions) 14:30, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Both. The claims about emergency medicine are based on case studies. The statement about pilots is based on a quantitative study. But the specific claim about the dangers of operating a new aircraft is a conclusion from the authors of the study. They did not directly study pilots operating a new aircraft. No specific empirical study was involved for the particular example of the general or the remark about the Ig Nobel Prize. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:54, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That helps, thanks. I think that maybe "Practical significance" is a good title, but per my question, I'm still not quite sure how things should be split between sections. There's a related issue in my mind that there might be POV issues in citing individual case studies for broad conclusions in Wikipedia's voice, unless you clarify that these are conclusions being drawn in individual case studies. I think that could be avoided by citing meta-analyses to show uniform findings between studies, if there are any available. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:29, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It may well be the case that there is a better way of splitting things up but I'm not sure how. For now, I've changed the title to "Practical significance". I tried to word this section carefully to avoid implying too much. But maybe it still did so I went ahead and attributed all the main claims to the authors that made them. I'm not sure whether this is overdoing it. But this way, we are on the safe side. Using several broad meta-analyses would probably be a better solution. But the DK effect is still relatively young and I'm not aware of any. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:51, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review! I hope it's ready now for another nomination. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:32, 25 June 2023 (UTC)