Template:Did you know nominations/Attribution bias

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Text issues

Attribution bias

(

)

... that students who modify their attributions to perceive greater control over their test grades actually perform better on exams?

5x expanded by Hschacter (talk). Self nom at 20:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Article size is okay, and 5x expansion date and ratio is verified (2,755 B / 424 words to ~ 20,000 B / 3,084 words). However, this is a new editor who did the expansion, who made a bunch of mistakes in both the article itself, in creating a duplicate copy of the article, and in trying to do this nomination. I've repaired some of these, but other MoS violations are still present. Moreover, I have no subject matter expertise here, so somebody who does should review this before it goes up on the main page. Also, the hook needs work in terms of formatting and I think the whole phrase "attribution bias" should appear in it. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The article conforms pretty well to my understanding of the topic. My only gripe on a first read through is that there are some value judgments smuggled into the "academic achievement" section with the use of "maladaptive" versus "positive" behaviors to describe classroom behavior—but this is actually fairly typical within the field.
Another possible issue is overlap with Attribution (psychology) since AFAICT almost all the work in this area fixates on attribution "bias". (Also kind of a value-laden term, but even more ingrained than implicit norms about the behavior of children.) Currently the articles seem to cover pretty similar subject areas, albeit with different examples and other material. groupuscule (talk) 01:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
P.S. I think if a user were to do the difficult work of combining the two articles, they would still deserve to run a hook on DYK—but I guess that's a separate question. groupuscule (talk) 01:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

This needs a new peek — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:02, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Text issues are pretty bad, article is not in an encyclopedic tone. "We" do what "we" do? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)