Talk:Forty Studies That Changed Psychology

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Forty Studies That Changed Psychology article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Articles for creation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
	This article was accepted on 12 June 2013 by reviewer DGG (talk · contribs).

Comments

In preparation for this class I will leave some comments on how to improve this article in advance of a meeting I'll have with the instructor for the purposes of introducing Wikipedia and assignments. I'll also leave some general Wikipedia knowledge. I'm leaving comments with the hope that this article will develop and that the knowledge gained will be transmitted to the students. =)

First of all, thanks for your interest in using Wikipedia as a medium for your students to do community service.
The presumption is that each of these 40 studies are probably notable by themselves, which is likely, given their coverage in the book. Yet, there is a general expectation for multiple secondary sources (see WP:GNG) that provide some detailed coverage about each study. I assume all students will use Forty Studies. My expectation is that they will also be locating other secondary sources (should they exist) that devote detailed coverage to each study. Citing the primary study itself is quasi-discouraged (yet permissible). We're an encyclopedia, so we aren't here to repeat primarily-sourced information. We're here to summarize information, and we use secondary sources for the purpose, so that we are "encyclopedic".
You will probably find the H:Cheatsheet helpful.
I did make this edit because I thought the text was fairly irrelevant. I think it was inserted to make people think the topic itself was important, so that it wasn't deleted, which is understandable. What matters most, though, is to cover what secondary sources say. Generally speaking, it doesn't inform readers about the topic itself to state the year and the publisher of a review.
A google scholar search turned up Minimally Sufficient Research by Pearson (2009) in Perspectives on Psychological Science. It would be a valuable secondary source for the purposes of this article. It starts naming the studies cited in the book, and they could be used to help create a list of all 40 studies.
- I added this citation. Mckteacher (talk) 19:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is "It has become a standard textbook in psychology, as evidenced by", original research, which is forbidden? It reads that way.
- I changed the wording to represent the simple fact that it has been peer reviewed for those courses. Mckteacher (talk)
There are no links to other topics. We can WP:Buildtheweb. Even with red links.
- I added some links. Mckteacher (talk)
The word "currently" or "recently" other time-dependent words can be discouraged, with "as of" being a common work-around. See WP:Timedependent. It may be OK here, but often with Wikipedia you can see people insert "A recent study..." That type of wording does not work well, because for how long should one consider a study to be "recent"? It would be better to state "A 2011 study..."
This article could be added to Category:Psychology experiments, along with all subsequent study articles produced in the semester.
To make the title appear in italics you could use {{italic title}} or Template:Infobox book. (see WP:Italictitle)
Some sentences are missing periods and several of the citations should be placed directly after the text or punctuation. (See WP:Refspace).
It looks a bit odd to have "The textbook is used in psychology courses at all levels of education and has been translated into six languages" cited to the book itself. If these facts are worthy of an encyclopedia, then maybe we should find a secondary source for them.
It also looks a litt odd to have an uncited paragraph about the format of the book. Maybe these details relevant for an encyclopedia, in which case we could cite the primary source and a page number, as Lemurs_of_Madagascar_(book)#Content does (a WP:featured article about a book).
- I cited the book itself. Mckteacher (talk)
Many citations are to bare urls, which isn't ideal. (WP:Bare URLs)
- I removed all bare urls. Mckteacher (talk)
I hope these comments have been helpful! You can reply (or ask for help or clarification) to each one you wish to by placing **Your reply. ~~~~ under each point you'd like to. Best. Biosthmors (talk) 18:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, this was very helpful and improved the article! Mckteacher (talk) 19:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're welcome, thanks for your edits! Biosthmors (talk) 20:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]