Wikipedia:Peer review/Electronic voice phenomenon/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Electronic voice phenomenon[edit]

A good page that's now stalled for various reasons. Hoping to submit for a GA/FA soon, but need suggestions for how to bring it up to standard. --InShaneee 20:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Review by aviper2k7[edit]

  • There's some reference formating problems. References should always follow a period without a space. Please go through and take out the spaces in-between the reference and the periods.
  • The first paragraph has a citation that needs membership to view. I think it probably could be replaced by a free reference. WP:EL discourages this.
  • Polyglot links to a disambig page, I clicked it because I didn't know what a polyglot was.
  • "but who are still able to communicate with the living.[16]" I'm assuming 16 was a reference, so please add a reference and take the 16 out.
  • Citation 3 is blank in the current version I'm reading. There's a broken reference at the end of the second paragraph.
  • The lead overall is very interesting, I like it. Good length also.
  • The paragraph beginning with "In 1901, while" doesn't give a clear description of how EVP is being used. How did he record this? If he was just trying to contact the dead, I don't think it belongs in this article. What means of recording did he attempt this on?
  • The beginning of the third paragraph really needs a citation. If it is important enough, you should be able to find a citation.
  • I can't see Raymond Bayless ever having his own article. I don't think he should be linked to. The Decca link is piped to a different place, but it's red, so I'm not sure it should be linked to at all.
  • There's a reference problem in the second to last paragraph. It references a book, but it should be a citation.
  • The last paragraph in the history section should have the citation after the period at the end per WP:CITE.
  • Paranormal explanations, this section needs references bad. Shouldn't be too hard to find them.
  • The third paragraph of that section doesn't make much sense to me. It could use some re-wording or clarification for someone unfamiliar with the subject. Needs a reference also.
  • The reference for the skeptics section should probably go after the quotes.
  • The reference at the end of the studies section should be in a citation.
  • The Further reading books need book numbers. They shouldn't be too hard to find.
  • External links need cleaning badly. There's some poor links that do not help. This is a link probably added by the owner to promote their website. It's spam.

I thought the article was pretty good, but it's not clear enough for people unfamiliar with the subject. It's pretty well referenced, but still needs some more in places. I don't think the article really needs the unsourced template anymore.++aviper2k7++ 00:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Review by Perfectblue97[edit]

This page talks far too much about dabblings into EVP, but contains very little about what EVP actually is. At present, what we have is a potted history of people trying to prove or disprove something, but very little about said something.

What are the characteristics of an EVP and how would I know if I got one? How do you go about getting one? Do they co-relate with haunting sites? What equipment do they appear on?

I'm also extremely concerned that there is a lot of factional POV pushing going on, with one faction seemingly intent on placing skeptical comments everywhere, and continually calling things into question using science standards rather than pseudo science standards (as would be correct in this instance), and another faction adding in content from special interest website that make statements without offering any data to back them up (when claiming a result, I'd like to see the analysis).

With all due respect to the editors who have put a lot of time into this (often at crossed purposes), I think that page needs to be sliced down to:

  • An explanation of the concept of EVP as a pseudo science (forgetting anything about it being unscientific, that comes later)
  • A brief history of EVP, including any significant experiments or events
  • A short section on paranormal explanations
  • A short section on non paranormal situations (here comes the bit about it being unscientific).

I also strongly suggest that no image caption ever include text along the lines of "This has not been pier reviewed", or "This has not been proven". Putting such text in such a promenant place is POV pushing in the extreme as it seeks to create a vivid impression in the mind of the reader.

perfectblue 13:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by LuckyLouie[edit]

I agree with Perfectblue's suggestions. There should be no need for text (such as the image caption) that denigrates the subject.

I might add that Wikipedia's policy regarding pseudoscience actually dictates that the article has a POV, which, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Pseudoscience is...

"The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view"

In the case of EVP, the majority (mainstream science) does not support the beliefs of the minority (EVP researchers), and I believe this can be stated by the article briefly, simply, fairly, and without rancor.

I have watched this article for a long time, and have observed that when one side decides to "pump up the volume" by adding more data to make its case, the other side responds in kind, and pretty soon the article is a mess of point-counterpoint. I will also go on record as registering my opinion that the "subject matter expert" chosen for this article was more of a hinderance than an asset. I found his advice to be counterproductive to the process of writing an encyclopedia article, e.g. "Study A is bunk and should not be mentioned since Study B is what our organization favors" and "Technique A is considered amateurish and should not be mentioned since we always use Technique B"

--- LuckyLouie 06:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)