Template:Did you know nominations/JUST-WORLD HYPOTHESIS
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Allen3 talk 15:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Just-world hypothesis edit
- ... that the just-world hypothesis is a cognitive bias that has positive health effects in addition to negative social effects?
Created/expanded by Cheaal01 (talk). Self nom at 22:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- Newness: within acceptable limits (what used to be called the Swahili rule): first expansion edit was saved at 18:33 on November 16
- Size: Passes: expansion from 2,691 characters (not counting the extended poetic quotation) to 15,420 characters, so more than 5-fold. Penbat also made numerous edits improving the article, but did not expand it, so far as I can see. I'm still inclined to throw in a credit.
- Newness: within acceptable limits (what used to be called the Swahili rule): first expansion edit was saved at 18:33 on November 16
To be continued, my life is chaos, someone else feel free to jump in meantime. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Clarity, referencing, avoidance of copyvio The article is clear for the most part and so far as I am able to judge, adequate in coverage. I do have a few concerns about use of sources and close paraphrasing/copyvio. I do not find the passage: "evaluations were always more positive for the one who had been accidentally rewarded" near the start of the article clear; I wondered what the methodology alluded to was (was someone randomly selected to be rewarded and the other participant not to be rewarded, or were people who somehow earned the reward contrasted with people who were randomly assigned it?) and none of the citations is linked to an online source, so I searched on the authors and title of reference 6 and found that this paper by Maes, Tarnai and Schuster not cited in the article contains "more positive for the one who had been accidentally rewarded". Was this a source used in expanding the article that didn't get referenced? In any event, there's clearly some echoing of its wording, although I can't see the whole article without paying so can't judge how much. The abstract for reference 24 contains "derogation increased with increasing severity of illness"; the article uses the same formulation. The second one I chose to check almost at random, so the fact I found the same phrasing being used in both cases is troubling. In a different matter, one of precision rather than copying of wording, the abstract for reference 19 refers to "a neutral outcome"; was it really a marriage proposal and thus a happy ending, as the article says, or have different experiments been confused in the article's summary?
- Hook The negative social effects part of the hook is only stated in so many words in the section on positive health effects. A general statement using those words needs to be inserted, with a reference. The specifics are well referenced, but someone looking for that precise statement won't find a neat sentence saying that. The positive health effects are clearly stated in those words and appear well referenced; however, both the section heading in the article and the hook refer to "health effects," but the specifics and the sources make it clear that they are mental health effects. I think this is misleading and should be changed in both heading and hook. Also I think the linkage in the hook to sections of the article is misleading and superfluous. I suggest
- ALT1 ... that the just-world hypothesis is a cognitive bias that has negative social effects but positive mental health effects?
- All copyvio wording needs to be changed, the hook and section header need to correspond to the focus on mental rather than physical health, and a clear statement that it has negative social effects, with a reference, needs to be inserted to clearly cover that half of the hook. All fixable, good expansion, sorry it took so long for this to be reviewed. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
for ALT1 (nominator has stated on my talkpage that s/he prefers that one anyway). Wording changes were made in several places and a ref added; I did not find further copyvio on additional checks, but I remain unable to see more than summaries, and the article is voluminously referenced. Coverage of the topic, similarly, appears adequate and balanced to me but I could only do spotchecks. The points of clarity that I raised have been fixed. Clear statements have been added supporting the negative social effects part of the hook and giving a reference that supports it. I made the change myself to the header from "health" to "mental health" to clearly support the other half and match the section content. Passes, assuming good faith on the paywalled sources and on sources I did not include in my copyvio check. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
