User talk:WeijiBaikeBianji/sandbox

Comments[edit]

First of all: it surely is a huge improvement, so be bold and instead of working in your sandbox do it direcly in the article. This is specially good idea for non-controversial articles such as this one. I am sure that nobody will oppose your changes and you will receive quite more feedback.

Some minor points:

I will move a big part of the lead to an initial introductory section in the article, and summarize it in the lead per WP:lead

I do not feel the first table (individuals changing their IQ), is very encyclopedic or useful. I would eliminate it.

Tests with their own WP article should be internally linked

It is a bit weird to only have a quotation as the content of the low-IQ section

Second table in the body of the article is very redundant with the first one (Weschler and Weschler according to others). They should be combined.

You say: The Kaufman test scores "are clasified in a symmetrical, nonevaluative fashion.": I am sure that makes sense in the original source but unless it is further explained I have no idea about its meaning...

Proposals of ideas for further improvements

The article is quite list-type. I would try to include more relevant text. I do not know if each test gives some info in the manual regarding the functional implications of each classification. Similarly I feel the article lacks some comment on the predictive validity and daily living importance of such classifications. You might also found some critiques to such kind of classifications
Some comment on the statistical origin of each test classification (or in general of IQ punctuations: that they are normalized tests with mean 100 SD 15 if I remember correctly) might be interesting
Similarly to above: some data on percentiles of the population under each classification for the different tests might also be useful.

I could probably give further feedback, but now you have some to carry on. I would not give further comments until the article is moved to mainspace. Good job. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 06:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

--Garrondo (talk) 06:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the several detailed comments. I appreciate hearing a reader's perspective. The IQ classification article serves as a subarticle for Intelligence quotient and for a few of the articles about specific tests or about mental retardation and intellectual giftedness, so I'll try to perform updates in a way that fits into a web of facts useful for all the linked articles. I think I have at least two more major rounds of updating to do, as I am trying to be meticulous about sourcing each statement, and then I should be ready to commit a bold public-facing edit, for which your further comments will be very welcome. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

good work[edit]

Certainly better than current version. Feel free to replace any time. --Sigmundur (talk) 10:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thoughtful edit of this sandbox draft. You and Garrondo have both provided helpful reader's perspective on how the article looks in current draft form. I'll revise according to your suggestions, and continue to add source citations. I expect to iterate through two more major drafts, the first to incorporate your suggestions, and some tinkering of references along the way, and then to post as a bold replacement of the current article text. I appreciate your help. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:11, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]