Talk:Dunning–Kruger effect/GA1

GA Review

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: TompaDompa (talk · contribs) 02:08, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I will review this. TompaDompa (talk) 02:08, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello TompaDompa and thanks for taking the time to review this nomination. I'll try to be responsive and reply to your comments in a timely manner. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:11, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

General comments

• I'm not a copyright expert, but how can the images be CC BY-SA 4.0 when they are from copyrighted works?
• There are a fair number of sentences beginning with "so", which gives a somewhat amateurish impression (being a comparatively informal phrasing). "Thus" is usually a better word to use, and sometimes it can simply be removed (perhaps replacing the preceding period with a semicolon).
• Verb tense is not consistent.
• The "External links" section is empty.
• The article needs copyediting to conform to WP:Make technical articles understandable.
• https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19568317 is cited twice in duplicate references.
• I'm missing discussion of the common perception (misconception) among laypeople that the Dunning–Kruger effect means something along the lines of "those who know very little think they know more than (and/or are more confident than) experts". This omission is especially conspicuous considering the caption for the image in the WP:LEAD says Nevertheless, low performers' self-assessment is lower than that of high performers. I notice that the "Mount Stupid" graph (and its interpretation) has been discussed a number of times on the talk page.
• The article cites Dunning (2011) heavily, which might not be the most neutral source.

Lead

• Since its first publication, various criticisms of the effect and its explanation have been made. – going by what the body says, it seems that saying that the effect (rather than the metacognitive explanation) has been subject to various criticisms is not entirely accurate.
• It's rather odd to mention criticism of the proposed explanation of the effect before mentioning what that explanation actually is.
• Some theorists hold that the way low and high performers are distributed makes assessing their skill level more difficult for low performers, thereby explaining their erroneous self-assessments independent of their metacognitive abilities. – this is basically incomprehensible when presented without context like this.

Definition

• I think this section would benefit from a table of the different components of the varying definitions.
• Biases are systematic in the sense that they occur consistently in different situations. They are tendencies since they concern certain inclinations or dispositions that may be observed in groups of people, but are not manifested in every performance. – is this to explain the phrase "systematic tendency"?
• to greatly overestimate their competence or to see themselves as more skilled than they are – are those not just different ways of saying the same thing?
• the lack of skill and the ignorance of this lack – to me, this is an odd phrasing. Specifically, the use of the word "lack" without a complementary "of X" sticks out to me.
• see the relation to metacognition as a possible explanation independent of one's definition – "independent of one's definition"?
• So it is sometimes claimed to include the reverse effect for people with high skill. – "claimed"?
• On this view, – grammar.
• Arguably, – WP:Editorializing.
• This phenomenon has been categorized as a form of the false-consensus effect. – gloss.

Measurement and analysis

• If done afterward, it is important that the participants receive no independent clues during the performance as to how well they did. – this almost comes off as a how-to guide.
• When done in absolute terms, self-assessment and performance are measured according to absolute standards – seems tautological.
• Link quartile at first mention.
• Some researchers focus their analysis on the difference between the two abilities, i.e. on subjective ability minus objective ability, to highlight the negative correlation. – I don't follow. Either this is fairly redundant (how else would you measure an overestimation?) or there's something I'm missing.

Studies

• This section relies a lot on WP:PRIMARY sources. WP:Cite reviews, don't write them.
• I don't see a good reason to list a bunch of studies like this. The findings may be relevant, but a timeline of studies conducted—which is basically what at least the latter part of this section amounts to—is not.
• While many studies are conducted in laboratories, others take place in real-world settings. – the difference is not immediately obvious to me, nor is its significance.
• More recent studies – MOS:RECENT.
• Link percentile at first mention.
• and points out – MOS:SAID.
• It does not yet contain the term "Dunning–Kruger effect", which was introduced later. – the cited WP:PRIMARY source can of course only verify the first part, and it's dubious if a primary source should be used in this way in the first place.
• It does not yet contain the term "Dunning–Kruger effect", which was introduced later. – when?
• the incompetent bank robberies of McArthur Wheeler and Clifton Earl Johnson – is there a strong reason to name these presumably-living people and call them "incompetent" in WP:WikiVoice?
• tries to show – "tries to show"?
• concludes that the Dunning–Kruger effect obtains only in tasks that feel easy – "obtains"?
• As he writes, [...] – this phrasing endorses Dunning's view rather than just reporting it.
• A 2022 study found, consistent with the Dunning–Kruger effect, that people who reject the scientific consensus on issues think they know the most about them but actually know the least. – this is a stronger assertion about the connection to the Dunning–Kruger effect than the cited source supports. It also seems to contradict the earlier Nevertheless, low performers' self-assessment is lower than that of high performers.

Explanations

• This section veers into engaging in disputes rather than merely describing them repeatedly.
• It would almost certainly be preferable to structure this section such that each proposed explanation is discussed separately within its own subsection, along with the arguments for and against it.
• I'm missing the "rational model of self-assessment" discussed in https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-021-01057-0 and summarized briefly in https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-021-01101-z.
• Stick to either "metacognitive" or "meta-cognitive".
• Both "account" and "approach" are odd words to choose here. I would go with "explanation", "model", "interpretation", and similar phrasings.
• Some attempts have been made to measure metacognitive abilities directly to confirm this hypothesis. – to investigate it, one would hope.
• There is a large and growing body of criticism of the assumptions on which the metacognitive account is based. – what the cited source says is The classic metacognitive interpretation of the Dunning–Kruger effect has been challenged by alternative explanations.
• This line of argument usually proceeds by providing an alternative approach that promises a better explanation of the observed tendencies. – that seems like it would go without saying.
• One such account is based on the idea that both low and high performers have in general the same metacognitive ability to assess their skill level. – that just seems like the negation of the metacognitive interpretation.
• The explanation for the regression toward the mean interpretation is rather difficult to follow. I'm not even sure it correctly describes the proposed mechanism. The way I understand it from e.g. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-021-01101-z, the idea is that the subset of participants with the most extreme actual performances will not have as extreme perceived performances assuming that self-assessments are imperfect.
• But such adjustments do not eliminate the Dunning–Kruger effect, which is why the view that regression toward the mean is sufficient to explain it is usually rejected. – not in the cited source.
• However, it has been suggested – MOS:WEASEL.
• Defenders of the statistical explanation – proponents.
• By choosing the right variables for the randomness due to luck and a positive offset to account for the better-than-average effect, it is possible to simulate experiments – needlessly technical phrasing.
• almost the same correlation between self-assessed ability. – and what? This is an incomplete statement.
• This means that the Dunning–Kruger effect may still have a role to play, if only a minor one. – the meaning of this is not immediately obvious.
• Opponents of this approach – "opponents"?
• But even proponents of this explanation agree that this does not explain the empirical findings in full. – not in the cited source.
• I am not convinced https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/critical-thinking/dunning-kruger-effect-probably-not-real is an appropriate source to use in this context. The reference also misspells the author's name.
• Another statistical-artifact-based challenge to the Dunning-Kruger effect is the demonstration that a form of the effect can emerge when the errors of the self-assessment are randomly created. – rather opaque.

Practical significance

• The Dunning–Kruger effect can also have negative implications for the agent in various economic activities – needlessly technical phrasing. Why "agent"?
• Some also concentrate on its positive side, e.g., ignorance can sometimes be bliss. – if there is only one positive side, "e.g." is incorrect. If there are multiple positive sides, "side" is incorrect. "e.g., ignorance can sometimes be bliss" is an odd phrasing to me.

Popular recognition

• This is not really an "In popular culture" section, but with a title like this people might expect it to be, so I would at least change the heading. The Ig Nobel Prize should certainly be mentioned somewhere in the article.
• a satiric Ig Nobel Prize – the Ig Nobel Prize is always satirical. Either swap the indefinite article for a definite one, or provide the explanation that it is satirical elsewhere.
• I'm not convinced mentioning "The Dunning–Kruger Song" is due.

Summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   See above.

   C. It contains no original research:

   Spotchecking has revealed several instances of material failing verification.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwig reveals no overt copyvio. I have not spotted any instances of unacceptably WP:Close paraphrasing, but I have not taken a close enough look to be able to rule it out with a reasonable degree of confidence.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   The images are tagged with appropriate licenses, but this seems dubious to me. See above.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

@Phlsph7: I am closing this as unsuccessful. I'm sorry this has taken so long; I started out with the intention to provide detailed feedback, but I have settled for providing a non-exhaustive sample of issues I noted while reading through the article instead. This is an interesting topic and it's a shame close the nomination like this, but there are systemic issues with the article that are not trivially fixable. The writing style is rather WP:TECHNICAL and unnecessarily wordy in places. More seriously, the article misuses sources (violating WP:NOR) and engages in disputes rather than merely describing them (violating WP:NPOV). My suggestion to bring this in line with Wikipedia's WP:Core content policies would be to pick a handful of review articles (or other similar sources that treat the entire overarching topic broadly), and use those to write the article. Sources on specific aspects (especially studies dealing with the effect) can be used to flesh out certain parts of the article by providing additional details, but should not serve as the basis for the article. WP:Cite reviews, don't write them. TompaDompa (talk) 22:20, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

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.