Talk:Barnum effect/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Power~enwiki (talk · contribs) 21:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Some words to watch issues, e.g. "seems to have originated with psychologist Paul Meehl". The lead section contains a lot of definitional material not in the rest of the article, and doesn't summarize much of the article contents. Detailed comments to follow below. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.	"This suggests that individuals who do not believe in astrology are possibly influenced less by the effect." - this may be OR. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)  Done
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	The 12 points from Forer's demonstration may be fair use; it's a substantial quote from a paper from 1949. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	No images currently. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Extended discussion

It may be worth moving the entire lead section into a new section called "Overview", and re-writing the lede from scratch. As far as "words to watch", seems to have originated with is the worst example, but there are a few others. I'll do another read-through the article (while doing reference checks) to make a complete list in a few hours. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! I'll wait for you to do another review before making any improvements. Meatsgains (talk) 02:08, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Notes from a read-through:

• While "Barnum effect" is more common in the title of references, "Forer effect" is used a lot in the article. Is it possible to standardize on one name? (a move discussion to "Forer effect" may be necessary if you feel that's the correct term)
• I don't think [1] is a particularly reliable source, and it doesn't seem to be necessary.
• I'm also skeptical of [2] (now at [3] ) as a reference.
• For [4], is it possible to confirm that this was printed in Experientia 44, and if so, to include that in the reference?
• I would combine "Barnum statements" with part of the lead section into a definitions/overview section, and Stagner's experiment with Forer's demonstration into "Early research" or something.
• The paragraph layout in "Repeating the study" isn't great.

power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:24, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I've made several improvements to the page given your suggestions. Let me know your thoughts. I think it might be worth moving the page to "Forer effect" per WP:COMMONNAME but will do so once the GA review is complete. Meatsgains (talk) 03:37, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Looks good at first glance. I'll do one more read-through. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:12, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

 Done power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Meatsgains (talk) 17:14, 2 December 2017 (UTC)