Wikipedia:Peer review/Race and intelligence/archive1

Race and intelligence
In response to positive comments from a vote for deletion attempt, I think this article is ready to move towards featured article candidacy. I think that this article is, as one editor put it, "proof that a community-edited article can work even when the subject is controversial". However, the article is very large, so some problems may have been overlooked. Note that to save space many ancillary and background debates have been only briefly noted and readers are referred to related articles in-line. I do not believe this topic is amenable to an article split; this would likely compromise NPOV. --Rikurzhen 06:30, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * To my uneducated eyes this is a decent article, but it seems to be lacking in some areas. The first thing I see is that it is much too focused on the on the United States. There is a brief "IQ gaps in other nations" section and some other international citations elsewhere, but all of them seem to be included for the light they can shed on the situation in the States. Secondly the page is almost wholly on the modern scholarly debate. I would like to see some of the earlier history of the issue. Thinkers as far back as Montesquieu have pondered this question and it certainly played a role in the eugenics movement and in the institutional racism of many governments. While this early scholarship is today universally rejected some mention of it would be useful because it did often had a major impact. - SimonP 19:41, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Unfortunately, the emphasis on the U.S. is a reflection of the available research. It's difficult to find data on other countries. A history section is a good idea. --Rikurzhen 22:25, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * This kind of research (contemporary)is pretty restiricted to American institutions, although critics of it come from further afield. I agree that it the historical context and research should also be discussed. The reference list is a tad ridiculous, only list the sources you used to write the article, general bibliographiesa aren't really useful to the reader.--nixie 00:30, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll screen out orphan references. --Rikurzhen 01:02, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * History section added. --Rikurzhen 19:03, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Well the topic is of interest, but that opening graph is just plain offensive, at least to me. Both scientifically and ethically, not to mention that it's always the first thing you see when you open the page. Sorry, but I'm highly sceptical of results like that. Was the graph data generated using orphan twins testing that compensated for cultural and economic factors? Was it only from data collected in the U.S.? I think the graph should be moved further down the page and accompanied by appropriate details on how the data was derived. Thanks. :-) &mdash; RJH 16:06, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the data in the graph is the least controversial aspect of the article. That is, this article is so controversial that there's no where to hide it. The data is representative of scores from hundreds of thousands of people in the U.S., tested over the last 90 years. In the end, this is an article about a research topic where the public is very underinformed about the current state of research, and so for many the things in the article will be very surprising. However, I think we need to keep criticism/skepticism to the level found in the research literature, rather than adding in our own. --Rikurzhen 17:44, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * The caption doesn't suggest that the graph compensates for economic factors; it's a cumulative distribution. It demonstrates the immediate issue that prompts the article -- a correlation of race and intelligence measures. Whether that is caused by cultural biases, socioeconomic differences, etc. is exactly the question the article looks into. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:18, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)
 * I can see that it has been discussed previously on the talk page, but still: maybe that data should be shown as overlapping bell curves instead. I understand the reasons against it, but (1) non-cumulative distributions are easier to grasp for many people, and (2) it's less offensive. Indeed, the overlapping curves would show very clearly that (a) the article presents data that makes claims about averages, (b) the variance is mainly within groups, and (c) individuals with a certain IQ can be found in each race. Thus we could make these three good, important points graphically, and on the first image. Now, I am a professional mathematician, handle these topics daily, and can read the current graph just fine, but for a general audience overlapping Bell curves might would address some of the comments RJHall voiced above, at least in part. Arbor 07:13, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I made a mock-up and put it on the talk page. I think it's even harder to understand. --Rikurzhen 07:20, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * RJH, actually one of my own first ideas when I saw the article was to move the second graph to the top. (The one that stratifies by income group.) That seems to be close to what you are suggesting. The problem is that that graph is much more "offensive": it shows you that the average black child of two doctors scores less than the average white trailer park kid. It also is much more POV in that this study is a very (and largely unanswered) challenge to the culture-only hypothesis. Instead, the current first image is extremely solid and remains open to all sorts of interpretations. For example, it is largely compatible with different versions of the culture-only hypothesis. However, I would be vary happy if you kept an eye on this article. If we can avoid offending people in presenting this debate then more people will likely read the article, so for that reason a conciliatory tone is highly desirable. I think the article could improve a lot from your help. Arbor 08:18, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Well I wasn't so much suggesting getting rid of the graph as moving it down past the introduction. When your browser is set to a certain size, the graph dominates the entire page. I.e. it's too large. It effectively becomes the introduction. Thanks. &mdash; RJH 17:48, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That's much easier to fix. We're looking at new designs on the talk page. --Rikurzhen 17:59, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * I think this is fixed. --Rikurzhen 03:58, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Too many short paras, merge. Remove external links from main body, move to notes, link with Footnotes. Looks good overall. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:48, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * In progress --Rikurzhen 22:54, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

This is simply way too long as-is and is many times the recommended point where articles may be considered too long (going above that requires more and more substantiation that the increased reading time is warranted; the larger the article, the more substantiation that is needed). Much summarizing and spinning off of detail is needed per point 6 of the FA criteria. See also Summary style. --mav 04:06, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * If you're up to it, we're debating that on the talk page here. --Rikurzhen 04:11, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * I believe this has been fixed. --Rikurzhen 06:45, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)