Talk:Ben Franklin effect/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Stedil (talk · contribs) 03:07, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Greetings! I will be reviewing the following article. Stedil (talk) 03:07, 3 September 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.	Large sections of the text are just direct quotations from the sources, rather than a summary "in your own words." see WP:YTCOPYRIGHT. Some unclear language in places, especially the lead.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead section doesn't summarize the rest of the article. Facts and information appear in the lead which are not discussed in the rest of the article. Likewise, sections in the rest of the article are not mentioned at all in the lead. Large-scale revision needed.
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.	There is a list of references in the article. All sources are cited adequately enough so that they can be verified.
	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).	This is the biggest problem with the article. As a scientific article, it is particularly important that all sources are reliable and verifiable. This article contains multiple sources from blogs, which are not reliable. See, WP:BLOGS. The primary source of information in an article such as this should be published, academic research on the subject. Currently, this article contains a grand total of TWO sources that fit this description (the 1969 and 1971 study). The 1971 study, by the way, is not directly sourced (in-line) where it is mentioned. In addition to expanding the number of academic research cited, it also needs to provide more recent research, as psychological theory changes over time. Other reliable sources that may be used are published books/textbooks which themselves properly cite academic research. This paper includes only TWO examples of sources of this kind (The 1979 textbook and the 2011 book). While the 2011 book does discuss cognitive dissonance, it doesn't directly reference the "Benjamin Franklin Effect" in the section cited or show how the two are connected, as claimed in the preceding sentence. All other sources in this article are not reliable and should be replaced. News organizations such as Forbes should be treated with caution as sources for an article like this, since they are not academic and may misrepresent the sources they refer to. For more guidance on sourcing information, I would read Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology/How to write a psychology article.
	2c. it contains no original research.	All info is cited in the article.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	While there aren't any copyright violations, see above about extensive use of quotes.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	There are many aspects of this topic which aren't covered in the article. For example, I'm still unsure about the direct connection between Ben Franklin and the psychological theory and whether researchers themselves actually refer to it by this name. Related to lack of sources, the information presented only discusses to academic studies, both several decades ago. What recent research has been done on this topic? The connection between the Ben Franklin Effect and cognitive dissonance is also unclear from the article and should be expanded as appropriate from available sources. As mentioned earlier, direct quotations from sources should be replaced with summaries of their content.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The entire article is about the Ben Franklin Effect, as it should be.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Several of the sources used (blog posts and Forbes article) contain bias, which carries over into the article itself through direct quotations. The "Uses" section in particular relies on the opinion of the creators of the articles/blog posts.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit wars present in edit history.
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.	only image cited is public domain.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	This article is in need of a serious rewrite before it becomes GA quality, most notably by replacing blog/news sources with academic/professional sources, especially recent sources. Once sources are added, the article will need a significant overhaul to reflect the new information provided by these sources. As of now, I see no reason to change this article's status from "Start" class.