Talk:Normalcy bias/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Farang Rak Tham (talk · contribs) 17:15, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction and limitations

Before starting this review, I'd like to state that I graduated MA in Psychology, but have never practiced it. I have found the subject of this article intriguing. I have experienced dangerous and potential life-threatening floods once, and I very much recognize what you are describing here.

My previous assessments have been well-received, although people generally think my reviews are lengthy.

Overview

I have assessed the article at C now. There are some things that need quite some work still.

1. Prose:

According to this Earwig scan, there has been some copying going on that may be undue. You have to rephrase the sections (those which are not attributed, small quotes) that are in red. Try to say those things more in your own words, in an encyclopedic tone of course. Wikipedia policy is opposed to copying and close paraphrasing, and it would be waste if the article got tagged for that.
The article reads very well and is well organized. It is easily understandable by laypeople. Those are obviously the strengths. However, the lead does not quite well summarize the contents of the article, and in fact, introduce information not mentioned in the main body of the article.

Would you suggest paraphrasing the quote from the book Wealth, War, and Wisdom? Meatsgains (talk) 02:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest finding a scholarly resource instead, or a news report from an established news outlet. The blog you are citing has no evidence of relevant expertise, of peer review or editorial oversight, which is of course common for blogs. See also WP:BLOGS. Were the resources I linked for you on this page and the talk page of any help? If not, try searching more on Google Scholar or on JSTOR. Let me know if you have trouble accessing a resource you find useful.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 14:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The lead has greatly improved. You might want to make the synonyms you mention into redirect pages.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 16:30, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added Normality bias as a redirect.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 07:16, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~And it makes more sense to start the section on causes before the section on effects.~~ ~~:2. MOS: In general, article follows the Manual well, but there is some WP:OVERLINKING going on, e.i. you are wikilinking some terms that everyone already knows.~~ ~~Also, the Extent section is too short to stand on its own: merge with other section.~~

3. References layout: Well done. There are two links that are no longer available, though one of them is archived on archive.net. The other one you have already linked elsewhere. So just make sure you remove the url from The Australian and replace it with the other url of the same article, and you'll be fine.

4. Reliable sources: You refer a lot to less reliable sources, such as blogs (Green Road Journal) or popular psychological websites (The Survival Mom). Though these may be valuable reading materials in their own right, the nature of a Wikipedia article like this requires reliable, peer-reviewed sources that are cited by other scholars. This problem appears to be the strongest in the first two sections. If you want to use examples to illustrate and liven things up, use established news reports instead. You have to get rid of all blogs cited in this article to get it through GA. The example of Vesuvius may be a nice example to cite, but once you start to talk about controversial subjects like why the Jews did not leave Germany, a source like One Peter Five will just not do (and in fact, coming from a Catholic source, raises many red flags). But even if you were not to mention controversial examples, you still need sources with editorial oversight or peer review. See also, WP:RS. The article of Oda is good. Ripley's article in Time is another good source, and there appear to be several other good sources she wrote about the subject you might want to use.

What are your thoughts on keeping Gerold's Blog as a reference? A lot of good information in that article however, he's not necessarily qualified to write on the subject. Meatsgains (talk) 03:05, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

His writing is more practical and applied rather than scholarly and reflective. Furthermore, the website has no reputation for scholarly or otherwise reliable information that is peer-reviewed or has editorial oversight. Nice write-up, but not a Wikipedia source.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 16:30, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When citing popular sources which have some level of credence in scholarly circles, such as the book of McRaney, you should get familiar with and cite his book directly (e.g. at Google Books) instead of a forum which shows only fragments.

5. Original research: ~~If you replace the popular examples with examples from reliable sources, you should be okay.~~

In summary, there maybe original research in the first two sections, which feature mostly popular sources.

6. Broadness: there are a number of things that have not been covered, but are essential:

who introduced the term and in what context?

Having a tough time finding when and where the term came from... Meatsgains (talk) 02:24, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You could mention some of the earliest mentions by scholars.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 16:30, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~:* You should describe the steps in normalcy bias. I have found some details here and here, if you can open the link, but there is probably a lot more to be found.~~

Are you suggesting I expand the Prevention section? I'm guessing that is what you're referring in regards to providing "steps"? Meatsgains (talk) 02:23, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind - take a look at the Phases section I created. Meatsgains (talk) 03:08, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well done! This helps clear up a lot. ~~Please check the section for grammar and style please.~~--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 16:30, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~:7. Focus: article stays focused well enough, but the in popular culture section does not really add anything valuable.~~

8. Neutral: written neutral.

9. Stable: article is stable.

10-11. Pics: ~~Please add a few pics. Considering the large section on examples, I am sure a few images on Commons can be used to illustrate these examples (e.g. police force).~~

As you can see, there is still some work to do. However, the structure of the article need not be modified much, but expanded some. The biggest work is (1) replacing the popular sources with reliable news sources ~~and (2) expanding the content as advised above.~~ I will do a final detailed review at the end, if you bear with me.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 17:15, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meatsgains, diligent work on those edits you made. However, with this edit you deleted parts that are actually properly referenced. The only thing I recommend is for you to add the "via" parameter and add the blog url which features The Australian article, because the original article is only accessible through a subscription. Websites with subscriptions are allowed on Wikipedia, of course, but since you found a copy of the article on a blog, it would be better to use that.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 06:51, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you however, could you be more specific on the "via" parameter? Not something I'm familiar with. I've restored the reference for the time being. Meatsgains (talk) 01:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have already fixed this.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 09:22, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When you get a chance, please take another look and let me know what you think. Thanks! Meatsgains (talk) 03:41, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meatsgains, good progress here! The article has improved a lot. The article is almost there now, but needs a bit more tweaking. Issues that remain:

there are still a number of sources that are technically speaking not reliable, e.g. the blogs you cite. Also, self-help books are normally not considered reliable, with the exception of those that are cited by scholars (McRaney).
There is still too much quoting going on. Try to keep literal quotes brief, and paraphrase as much as you can. Wikipedia policy discourages lengthy quotes. The first time you cite McRaney in the Examples section, you do it right: quote a bit, paraphrase a lot, and keep it readable. Now apply that to all quotes in the article.
~~In the phases section, the grammar is still a little off. And don't use single quote signs please. Only double.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 16:30, 22 December 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]

1. Meatsgains, to give you specifics, you need to replace the following sources, which are technically speaking not reliable:

blogs: Gizmodo, Prophezine, Police: The Law Enforcement Magazine, Relevant Bible Teaching, Gerold Blog.
self-help books: Wyne Ince, Bryce Hoffman, Robin J. Elliott
websites with a reputation for fringe, e.g. conspiracy theories: Global Research.

I hope this is not too much. Reliable sources can be found through services like Google Scholar and Google News. Look for scholarly sources that are much cited and news reports from outlets with a high reputation for accuracy.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 01:05, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

4. At the risk of being fuzzy, i should also remind you that there are some paragraphs in the article that have been copied almost verbatim from sources not credited. Please remove those paragraphs or rephrase, following reliable sources cited. See above for the link to the Earwig scan.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 07:06, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meatsgains,I'm giving you one more day, after which I'm closing the review.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 06:57, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a few more suggested references on the top of the talk page. I hope this helps.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 07:33, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am closing the review now. It was nice working with you. Since you are almost there, i suggest you nominate the article for GA again as soon as you are available. I'd be willing to do another review, should you wish me to.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 06:00, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With the holidays and travel, I wasn't able to find the time to make the additional changes. I'll continue working on the page and renominate it for GA status soon. Meatsgains (talk) 17:13, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed