Talk:Dunning–Kruger effect/GA2

GA Review

Passed. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:51, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: BennyOnTheLoose (talk · contribs) 23:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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:
· · ·

I'll start by digesting the earlier review, at Talk:Dunning–Kruger effect/GA1. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:55, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello BennyOnTheLoose and thanks for reviewing this article. The last review did not go very well. I hope the main problems were addressed in the subsequent changes and the following peer review. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll obviously look through the PR as well. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the concerns raised in the last GA review and discussed in the PR have been addressed where possible, but I'll bear the original criticisms in mind as I go through. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:01, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio check

I reviewed the top matches found using Earwig's Copyvio Detector.

Large match with almbok.com has all the hallmarks of a backwards-copy.
McIntosh et al: "stupid people are too stupid to know they are stupid" is cited, but as it is a direct quote, I think it should be attributed in the text. Other matches here are titles, and short phrases acceptable per WP:LIMITED.
Done.
forums.playcontestofchampions.com - very much looks like a copy and paste from Wikipedia.
Krajc & Ortmann - just the title

Ackerman, Beier & Bowen - just the title
Britannica - titles, and short phrases acceptable per WP:LIMITED.
LinkedIn - either a backwards-copy, or a coincidence.

Images

The images are useful - is there a reason why the explanations are not cited to the articles that the data come from?

Only for the first one since the idea of highlighting the area in red came from the talk page. I adjusted the references for the other images accordingly. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:51, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Definition

Spot check on In the case of the Dunning–Kruger effect, this applies mainly to people with low skill in a specific area trying to evaluate their competence within this area. The systematic error concerns their tendency to greatly overestimate their competence, i.e. to see themselves as more skilled than they are. - OK
According to psychologist Robert D. McIntosh et al., - feels slightly awkward in the text, but perhaps less awkward than listing all the authors.
Maybe just using "McIntosh et al." instead of "psychologist Robert D. McIntosh et al." would be better. But I think there is a guideline that names should be spelled out for the first mention. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Optionally, maybe replace "et al" with the equivalent of something like "and fellow researchers"? BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I used the expression "and his colleagues". Phlsph7 (talk) 12:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Measurement, analysis, and investigated tasks

Spot check on The Dunning–Kruger effect is present in both cases, but tends to be significantly more pronounced when done in relative terms. This means that people are usually more accurate when predicting their raw score than when assessing how well they did relative to their peer group. - no issues.
Spot check on The strongest effect is seen for the participants in the bottom quartile, who tend to see themselves as being part of the top two quartiles when measured in relative terms - no issues
Spot check on objective performances are often divided into four groups. They start from the bottom quartile of low performers and proceed to the top quartile of high performers - no issues
Spot check on In some cases, these studies gather and compare data from many countries Is this supported by the text? It has the example of a survey across 34 countries of the math skills of 15-year-olds but I didn;t immediately see another one that was across many countries.
You are right, it just mentions one. I added another source. I could do some digging if more are needed. Some sources focus explicitly on cross-cultural comparisons.
What's the support for Most of the studies are conducted in laboratories, from the cited sources?
From Dunning 2011, p. 264: We have observed this pattern of dramatic overestimation by bottom performers across a wide range of tasks in the lab—from tests of logical reasoning and grammar skills (Kruger & Dunning, 1999) to more social abilities like emotional intelligence (Sheldon, Ames, & Dunning, 2010) and discerning which jokes are funny (Kruger & Dunning, 1999). We and others have also observed similar overestimation in real world settings as people tackle everyday tasks, such as hunters taking a quiz on firearm use and safety, based on one created by the National Rifle Association, at a Trap and Skeet competition (Ehrlinger, Johnson, Banner, Dunning, & Kruger, 2008), and laboratory technicians taking an exam about medical lab procedures and knowledge (Haun, Zerinque, Leach, & Foley, 2000). In all cases, top to bottom performers provide self-evaluations along percentile scales that largely replicate (Fig. 5.2).. The term "most" is implied but not explicitly spelled out. I reformulated it to be on the safe side. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If done afterward, the participants receive no independent clues during the performance as to how well they did - I haven't read this source; is this stated as absolutely in the source? I'd imagine, for example, that if it was face to face, there could be some unconscious clues.
from Mazor & Fleming 2021, pp. 677–678: ...no feedback is delivered during the quiz itself..... You are probably right that an interviewer may inadvertently give away clues. But if that had a significant impact then it would spoil the measurement. If the formulation is a problem, we could change it to "should receive no independent clues". Phlsph7 (talk) 12:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's faithful to the source as is, so fine. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:49, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Explanations

Spot check on The metacognitive lack may hinder some people from becoming better by hiding their flaws from them. - no issues.
You may recall that I'm not a fan of groups of citations after several sentences, e.g. [2][7][28], but this isn't a blocker to GA status.

Practical significance

Ehrlinger et al. 2008, pp. 98–121. - is it possible to be more specific about the relevant part of the source?
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:59, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Spot check on In 2000, Kruger and Dunning were awarded the satirical Ig Nobel Prize - no issues.

Lead

Looks good.

Sources

Frontiers in Psychology was on Beall's List but seems to be OK.
Dunning, David (1 January 2011) - archive link is not useful (it's just a search page, which doesn't produce results)
I removed the archive link.
Lots of reliance in Dunning (2011) but I don't find this problematic given what it's supporting in the article.

General comments

I think the "listen to this article link" should be removed; it has quite an old version of the article, and I believe that most people who want a spoken version of the article would have the means to have it read.
Done.
I really don't have much to comment on here. The criticisms from the first GA review have been addressed constructively with the help of a peer reviewer. From what I've seen in sources, the article covers the main points and has a suitably balanced structure. I found it generally easy to read; as I've argued before, assuming no prior knowledge of basics and trying to explain everything in detail would make the article lose focus. There are wikilinks to help the reader. Perhaps I've over-estimated my competence as a reviewer! Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:53, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the helpful comments. I hope I've addressed all the main concerns. I've suggested a few alternative formulations in case the current ones don't fully solve the issues. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm satisfied that the article meets the GA criteria, so I'm passing it. Thanks for taking the earlier review and peer review comments on board as well as responding to my points here. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:49, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.