Talk:Denomination effect/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Bungle (talk · contribs) 20:14, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Will take a look at this and try to get some feedback within the next few days (perhaps some initial comments sooner). Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:14, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Review

Article version reviewed: 15 June 2017 Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:49, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

This seems to suffer alot from the same problems as IKEA effect when I reviewed that back in July. The core issue is the excessive use of direct quoting, which essentially means vast parts of the article is simply other people's work directly copied, without even a credible effort to at least suitably paraphrase.

Therefore, this is not an exhaustive review. There may be obvious issues that I haven't identified/noted until such a time that the article has been rewritten to ensure the remaining prose can be appropriate reviewed.

General

• Would Template:psychology sidebar be an appropriate addition?
• Perhaps the "Biases" navbox could go at the bottom?
• The placement of sections seems peculiar - "conclusions" here comes before "early studies". The other sections may need revisiting, as to whether they need to be sections outright (i.e. mental accounting, stock splits)
• Use of the term "bills" seems very Americanised and not necessarily worldwide representative. Could we substitute to something more generic, like "banknote"? I appreciate the reports use the "bill" term, but wikipedia article's like this don't have to
• As noted in my intro, I cannot, and simply refuse, to review direct quoted text. This makes it difficult to review large parts of the prose, as it's someone else's copyrighted work. Extensive paraphrasing is essential.

Lead

• "It was proposed by Priya Raghubir and Joydeep Srivastava.." - Not clear who these two people are. If they proposed it, it seems they are quite important and thus deserve some introducing?
• "In an experiment conducted.." - this is in the lead but it doesn't explain/describe what the effect means; perhaps this is better in the experiments section
• Taking the unsuitable 2nd paragraph out, there is very little info in the lead actually explaining what the effect is, how it came about or indeed any real summary of the remaining article prose. It's far too brief

Experiment

The only part of this which appears reviewable (not quoted) is the last paragraph.

• "150 Chinese women.." - is there a particular need to specify the women as Chinese? This is acceptable is there is an ethnic or geographical comparison being made. The ref actually says they were recruited for the survey within China, not that they are Chinese (even if that is likely).
• The ref regarding this last paragraph makes note to certain attributes, including salary range of the participants, which may be worth noting as the amounts offered in the experiment, were for some, a notable portion of their typical salary, so may it have had an impact on their decision to spend/not spend also?
• Denomination is wikilinked here, despite numerous prior occurences. Typically, the first occurence will be wikilinked

Conclusions

• Almost entirely quoted text. See above.

Early studies

• "The experiment by Raghubir and Srivastava built on.." - I see this is briefly noted in ref2. It'd help if this sentence ended with the ref, and of course, paraphrased.
• Whole section needs rewriting.

Implications

• Needs paraphrasing

Mental accounting

• Why is the title of the section "using these"?
• First paragraph needs paraphrasing
• Spell out NPR so it's clear what this is without needing to jump to the respective article to find out
• "..noted that as the recession worsened.. - it doesn't specify this. Yes, it can be assumed this is meant based on the exact words used ("people were feeling pinched") but it doesn't specifically note the recession

The first sentence of the article says, "As the recession deepened..." Shall we replace "worsened" with "deepened"? Meatsgains (talk) 03:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• "..a Sacramento businessman observed that his employees.." - where is this assumption drawn from? It says in his office, which could simply mean an office designated to him in a business/company he works for.
• "NPR observed that this was a classic example of the denomination effect in action" - their observation has no bearing on what the facts are. I don't think this sentence is justified for inclusion
• "..the machine's users felt it was thriftier to use coins" - whilst I draw the same conclusion, the ref says it was the opinion of the person who stocked the machine. The article makes it sound like office workers were actually asked (they may have been, but this ref doesn't collaborate that)

What the hell effect

• My thoughts reading this are quite the same as the section name; "what the hell" has this got to do with anything pertinent to the article's purpose? The article is about denomination (or specifically about how large or small can affect a decision), yet this section seems to contradict the psychology being discussed

Stock splits

• Need paraphrasing
• "One financial expert.." - a bit of a cop-out. Who is this and what makes them an expert? It could be perceived as OR/wiki author opinion without any further details
• Maybe it could be noted why this section is wikipedia worthy, rather than appearing to be just the opinion of an unspecified supposed "expert"

Images

• Not a single image?

References

• All seems fine.

Conclusion

I am so disappointed that as with another similar "effect" article I previously reviewed, this suffers from much of the same issues. It's been sat in the queue for nearly a year and it's clear to anyone that much of it simply cannot be reviewed in the current state. As it's waited for nearly a year, I am more inclined to allow the paraphrasing work to be undertaken, along with the suggestions above I have been able to make.

I will have to do another review once it's in a better and more worthy state. I'm prepared to wait for a week (give or take) for improvements to be made. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:49, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

@Meatsgains: I note you haven't made any improvements/amendments since my review comments above. Please advise if you will be looking to do so, or if you cannot for the time being and therefore I can fail the nomination. I felt it was reasonable, given the queue time, to afford a period of time for changes to be made, despite my concern at the excessive direct quoting. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:25, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience. I'll will start making improvements if you allow a bit more time. Meatsgains (talk) 03:04, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine. I could see you hadn't logged in since my last comment so wanted to give you a chance to see my comment before progressing. I see you are making changes, so I'll wait until you let me know these are done then take another look. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:29, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll let you know when I'm finished. Meatsgains (talk) 02:46, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

@Bungle: All done! Let me know what you think. Meatsgains (talk) 03:17, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

@Meatsgains: Will aim to take a look and offer feedback within the next few days. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:02, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry this is taking longer than I hoped. I'll have some comments soon! Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:19, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

GA Review 2

Here is my initial feedback since the rewording. Much is very trivial and some may perceive a little pedantic, however i'd feel being addressed would be beneficial. I am still working through, so further suggestions are likely to be forthcoming. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:59, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Lead

• I am thinking if "whereby" should be substitued for "suggesting", given the effect deals with the views and suggestions of those who wrote the paper (rather than stating it as a matter of fact)
• "whereby people are less likely to spend larger banknotes than their equivalent value in smaller banknotes" > makes it seem like it's just limited to banknotes, but coinage is equally as important, perhaps moreso
• "Raghubir and Srivastava conducted three studies.." > This is already mentioned, in detail, in the main prose. By all means refer to it in the lead, but perhaps limit to the most brief overview without the intricate detail duplicated in its entirety. You should cut this by 50-75%
• "The denomination effect's influence on spending decisions.." > maybe give at least an example on a implication in the lead (no intricate detail though, as further info should be in the main prose)
• Monetary policy has its own article, as does Consumer welfare.

Experiment

• "Their first experiment.." - was the study just about giving students random change and seeing how they spent it, or was there a prior part to it (unrelated), which then resulted in them being "thanked" with loose change? The paper says it was a "cover story" so perhaps worth being clear.
• There isn't mention as to how many of the 89 went on to make a purchase (39/89 - 44%), only the percentage of those that did with each denomination type.
• We don't know how many were randomly given small and large denominations respectively. The paper suggests 43/89 and 46/89 respectively (48% and 52% approx)
• The third study still doesn't make note to say the experiment was conducted in China. I do think it's important to note this, as it shows how the effect may be applicable outside of the USA
• RMB is Renminbi, so maybe needs wikilinking and perhaps spelt out fully in the first instance, with brackets to RMB that can be subsequently referred to as such
• It may be helpful to know what RMB 100 equates to in a more mainstream currency, so the reader can better understand the value in their own mind and thus appreciate the mindset of the participants when making the decision. Perhaps if doing this, the equiv value in USD and EUR could be given
• "Roughly 18.7%.." > 18.7% isn't "roughly", it's actually quite specific. Roughly would be 19% or "roughly just less than a fifth" for example. Perhaps if using exact percentage, it could be complimented by noting the actual participant number the percentage represents?
• The last sentence about how satisfied they were - the comparison to those who received the sum in smaller denominations could be being made against either those receiving the larger some spending more, or those being less satisfied. For instance, the sentence can read two different ways and I don't know how its meant, so maybe it could be clarified:
  • Those who received the money in a single large-denominated banknote spent more (but were less satisfied with their purchases), than those who received the same sum in smaller denominations
  • Those who received the money in a single large-denominated banknote spent more, but were less satisfied with their purchases than those who received the same sum in smaller denominations

Early studies

• "One earlier study (Mishra, Mishra, and Nayakankuppam, 2006).." > this is a wikipedia article, not an academic paper. This study should be thus introduced properly and this part reworded so it doesn't come across as an academic paper itself
• "documented the so-called "bias for the whole,"" > so-called by who? Did those involved in this earlier study coin this phrase and use it exclusively, or is it more commonplace?
• Why is "(five $20 bills)" at the end of the sentence? Doesn't seem to add anything.
• "people perceive higher value when money is in a large single denomination because it is more difficult to process the transaction relative to the process of small denomination transactions" > simplify?
• "The greater processing fluency results in a positive affect toward the money.." > simplify this; whilst I understand, the article isn't necessarily going to be read by seasoned academics, thus you should avoid the desire to convolute the text
• "Unlike Mishra et al., who studied purchase intentions.." > maybe it should be clear that this is a different type of study (intentions vs decisions) at the start of this section (referring back to my prior comment)

Applications

• Spell out IRS so it's clear who they are, without needing to go to the article

Images

I accept it's very hard to find images, given it's all about psychology and nothing physically tangible you can capture. I guess stock images, as is now present, is fine

References

• The main reference used is the actual paper itself, which is understandable. However, there are a fair few pages on this and the in-line citations just refer to the paper, rather than the page the information is cited from (citing the page # as 701-713 is quite useless, as that is the paper entirety). Typically when citing journals, academic papers and books, the reference will be declared separate and the inline citations will be specific page references against this citation. There are many articles where this is done, and i'd suggest adopting this to ensure it's easier to find information

@Meatsgains: I see you have made changes within the last week, however the refs are as yet unchanged. Will you be looking to make these amendments too? Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:57, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

• I still need to scrutinise the referencing a little further too, however this would be made easier if the citations were accurate (page numbers for instance)

@Meatsgains: It's been quite some time and no effort has been made to improve the referencing so it specifically notes the pages and sections that correspond to the inline citations. I did a minor copyedit last week, hoping you may see the article pop up in your watchlist again and remind you to take a look, but it doesn't seem to have happened. I don't want to fail it, but in the absence of much communication from yourself, it's heading that way. Also..

• "RMD 100 is equivalent to roughly..." > is this taken as a conversion today, or a conversion as it was when the survey was done? Not clear.
• "Arul Mishra, Himanshu Mishra, and Dhananjay Nayakankuppam" > who are they, exactly?
• "..earlier research studies, including one (Gourville, 1998).." > I have noted before that a wikipedia article is not an academic paper, so why is this line using academic referencing? Also, rather than mention this and link to another article that also mentions it, can you not just refer to this reference directly? Is it a journal, book or something else?
• "..framed as $1.." > framed?

My primary concerns right now are that it still reads like an academic paper/assignment rather than a wikipedia article for the masses, as well as improvements to referencing that is still outstanding. Whilst I don't mind doing copyedits towards the end when the main issues are resolved, I am a bit reluctant to whilst other concerns remain outstanding. I feel I have afforded alot of time for this article being on review/on hold, so there either needs to be some communication (queries to my comments, confirmation of changes to be made etc), or edits being undertaken. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for pinging me and allowing more time. This page did fall through the cracks. I'll begin making the additional changes you suggested. Might need some help with the references though... Meatsgains (talk) 18:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Take another look when you get a chance and let me know what you think. I've added page numbers to "The Denomination Effect" paper used as a reference. Meatsgains (talk) 19:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@Meatsgains: Will take a look within the next few days. I see the refs need doing more formally but that is easily addressed. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd be happy to fix the references if you let me know the correct format. Meatsgains^(talk) 03:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Final comments

@Meatsgains: I have just taken a final look through and made some further adjustments (either rewording some parts, or removing redundant words). I didn't anticipate it'd still be "open" 2 months later, though I guess there has been no particular urgency either. None the less, I am happy that the prose is now referenced well, appropriately and consistent in all parts of the article. Furthermore, the paraphrasing has now meant that it isn't essentially a plagiarised variation of someone's work (the excessive quoting was a big issue). I know you have written a fair few of these articles, and may well nominate more in the future; my suggestion would be to go through them and paraphrase appropriately, as well as ensuring that they don't read like a degree essay/dissertation, which at times it felt like I was reading. Anyhow, i'll mark it as a GA given it's been vastly improved since the initial feedback comments. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:18, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help on this and promoting the article to GA status! The page certainly reads more encyclopedic now. Meatsgains^(talk) 02:32, 6 February 2018 (UTC)