Talk:Two-factor theory of intelligence

Megan's questions

First, I didn't get to this until just now. Yours was one of two articles I didn't get to last night.

How would be the best way to begin an article from scratch? How far do we go with Spearman's method? There are many places to link into the rest of the wikipedia page, but how do we know what is relevant to our article and what belongs in another area?

• To begin a new article, click Wikipedia resources in Blackboard. How to Publish a New Article on Wikipedia is right at the top. You do not need to repeat information in detail when you can link to another page. Just give a brief statement and link.

J.R. Council (talk) 23:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Danielle's questions

I have some concerns including being able to find enough information to write a proper wikipedia page and how to know if an article is Wikipedia appropriate.

• Read the brochure I handed out in class, Editing Wikipedia Articles on Psychology -- also the information I put above in answer to Megan's question about starting a new article. Don't worry about having enough information. There are tons of information out there on Spearman. J.R. Council (talk) 23:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

No progress, no points

This group has done nothing on Assignment 6. When I see some contributions, I can assign points. Remember, each assignment builds on the previous one. You need to catch up. J.R. Council (talk) 03:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Our work is in my user talk page, not my sandbox talk page (Whoops!). Our outline and discussions are currently on my talk page, and we are going to be working on our article in my sandbox, which we are working on for Assignment 7. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meganrose99 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Scoring so far

From what I can see, Megan has made at least 5 significant edits to the article in the sandbox, which is worth the full 25 points for the assignment. J.R. Council (talk) 04:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I have been very sick the past week and not able to work on the article. I have tonight booked to work hard on this. My apologies for the delay, but I will get it done. Dnelson2 (talk) 17:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Council's comments on Assignment 7

First - I got the message about where to find Assgn. 6. Will check that and credit your work. Comments on #7:

1. You've got some good content developed, but you need to add to it and clean up formatting. You have some problems with citations in the text.
2. The material about the modern development is good, and it is good that you linked to the main articles on Thurstone, etc. You don't need to add more material to this section, but I think you do need to make it more explicit how the modern theories relate to Spearman.
3. Section on impact is good and needs to be developed more.
4. The suggestions that you're making on the outline for more material seem good.
5. One area that you could develop is how Spearman's theory relates to the heredity/environment debate on intelligence. Take a look at Herrstein & Murray's the Bell Curve. They cite a book by Spearman (1927) The abilities of man.
6. Finally, if you are looking for material, look at some things Spearman wrote, like the book above.
7. Be sure to read this: Spearman, Charles. (1904). "General intelligence," objectively determined and measured. American Journal of Psychology, 15, 201-293. [Probably the most influential paper in the history of psychometric intelligence theory.] Find it at http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Spearman/

J.R. Council (talk) 21:45, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Coming along well

This is starting to look good, but is not final.

1. One thing you need is a proper introduction. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section
2. You need to proofread carefully. Make this something you will be proud to publish.
3. References look good!
4. Also, see my previous comments. You have not addressed all of these.

J.R. Council (talk) 03:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Nice work - really close now

I like how you have put my comments in the sandbox. That's a good idea to pass along to other groups.I don't have much more to say - if you do these things I'll be ready to pass this on to Ian at Wiki Ed pretty soon. Just a couple of suggestions:

1. I'm still seeing some typos and grammatical errors. Make sure to do a good job on proofing this.
2. Need to polish up that last section on Modern psychology.
3. Not sure what you want to do with the piece that starts: "To visualize g, imagine a Venn diagram with four circles overlapping." The reason it looks the way it does is that you've put a space before the first letter in the sentence.

Let me know when you're ready for me to pass this to Ian. Soon would be nice. J.R. Council (talk) 22:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC) I will be finalizing this today Dnelson2 (talk) 16:08, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

You are getting very close to publishing

Just a few suggestions for changes before I send this link to Ian:

1. You still need to work on the Introduction. Intros do not have a title, so delete the section title. Make sure it's a good summary of the main article. What you've got here is very choppy. See my previous link to lead section.
2. Proofread! Especially section, Impact on Psychology. There is good content here, but it seems to have been written in a hurry.

J.R. Council (talk) 04:24, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion for better introduction

The first couple of sentences need to be rewritten. You've got the gist of it, but the phrasing is off. Try re-writing it something like this:

Charles Spearman developed his two-factor theory of intelligence using factor analysis [1]. His research not only led him to develop the concept of the g factor of general intelligence, but also the s factor of specific intellectual abilities [2].

• You can then delete the next sentence: With these two measures, Spearman developed his Two-Factor Theory of Intelligence.
• After you do this, let me know and I'll send the link to Ian.

J.R. Council (talk) 22:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Feedback

Really nice work on this article. It's in really good shape. A few improvements you might still want to make

• The lead section needs a little expansion. It should summarize the main points of the entire article
• The Structure of the intelligence debate section might read better as a single section, rather than three sub-sections.
• Take a look at Charles_Spearman#Theory_of_intelligence and make sure there's nothing important there that's missing from here. Once you move this article into mainspace, you should add {{seemain}} (or whatever name you choose for this article) at the top of that section.
• It would be helpful if you could use reference templates for your sources. If you look at the top of the edit window (the place you type text after you hit 'edit') you should see the word 'Cite' on the toolbar. Click on that, selected appropriate template from the drop-down menu, and fill it in as best you can. Doing that creates a better formatted reference, and one that it easier to maintain in the long run.

  If you don't have time for that, at least consider making the last reference consistent with the others (at present the author's name is in ALL CAPS). Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback! Dnelson2 (talk) 21:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• I think it's very clear what you need to do. Just a few easy fixes. Let me know when you're ready to start moving this article to main space. Congrats on a job well done! J.R. Council (talk) 22:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)