Talk:Happiness/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Larry Hockett (talk · contribs) 09:01, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take a look at this one. I will begin posting feedback shortly. Larry Hockett (Talk) 09:01, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

After reading through this entry, I think the GA nomination may be a bit premature. With that said, I appreciate the work that has already gone into the article, and I will leave some comments to explain my thoughts. Right now, the issues fall into a few themes:

• the lead doesn't adequately summarize the article
• there are existing maintenance tags in the article and some unsourced passages for which tags would be justified
• some of the concepts are not explained in enough detail to help the reader
• sometimes the structure of the writing leads to potential confusion

I will explain in more detail below.

Lead

The lead section should summarize the main points from the body; see WP:WIAGA criterion 1b. Happiness is a massive topic, so it will probably require a large lead (four well-developed paragraphs) to do the job here. Right now it is just three sentences and doesn't really even hint at a definition of the concept.

Maintenance tags

Maintenance tags, like Citation needed, are easy opportunities to improve an entry before a GA nomination. There are a few such tags, and there are some unsourced passages that could be tagged. Sources should be added to those passages even if they are not tagged yet.

Lack of detail in some areas (criterion 3)

I see the first example of this in the Definitions section, where you mention the convening power of the term. I am not sure what you mean by this. I also struggled in the Culture section, needing some examples to understand the points being made. Which individualistic cultures are you referencing? What about some of the cultures that are averse to happiness? I find that very interesting, but the article stops right at the point of telling us who they are.

The Philosophy section is mostly fleshed out, but the bit about McMahon could use some attention. What emphasis are we referring to? (Or among whom?)

In the Religion section, if Patanjali wrote on these matters extensively, at least give us a one- or two-sentence summary of his work. Same for Al-Ghazali - what are the key tenets that came from the manual?

The Methods section needs expansion, but not everything mentioned there is a method for achieving happiness. Negative effects, for example, are not methods. Being naturally happy is also not really a method. Tell us about positive psychology in a sentence or two before mentioning its expansion. That way the lay reader can appreciate its connection to happiness. In the discussion of Mill, I might leave out the term en passant and just explain what you mean by it (even looking up the term on WP leads to entries about chess, bridge and music). A couple of the subsections here are just single direct quotes. Surely we can paraphrase those or add to what the theorist said. You list the three needs associated with self-determination theory, but there is no discussion of how the theory relates to happiness.

You mention that some cultures do not seek to maximise happiness, but you have already said this in the Culture section.

In the Examining happiness section, you have "Some commentators focus on the difference between ..." - this is a prime opportunity to mention the prominent commentators who do so.

In the Measurement section, the bit about the UK and Bhutan seems random. Were they the first countries to measure it? How long has Bhutan done that?

Structure issues

Some of the sections are organized in a manner that leads to confusion. I noticed an example of this in the Definitions section. You mention that Daniel Kahneman gives one definition based on current experience, but then you state that he says the other definition (life satisfaction) is more important to people. That might require more explanation (as to why he would define the term that way if there is another definition that better captures people's feelings on the subject).

You might consider combining the sections on the negative effects of happiness and the negative effects of seeking happiness. Same for possible limits. I notice that, despite the presence of the negative effects and limits sections, there are no sections on benefits of happiness. Right now, the benefits are broken up into different sections.

In the section on physical characteristics and heritability, there is only the slightest mention of physical characteristics. Is there a better way to break this up? (While we're looking at this section, there is also some editorializing: "it is important to first understand".)

In the section on contributing factors and research outcomes, the Yale course doesn't seem to fit as either a contributing factor or a research outcome. Where else could we mention it?

Other matters

The references need some cleanup (GA criterion 2). There are bare URLs, and there is a lack of consistency in citation style to the point where it is sometimes unclear whether a book, journal or website is being cited.

There are some grammar and spelling issues that can be distracting at times; ex: happiness aims being effected (affected) by cultural factors, and a run-on sentence in Judaism section. Once the article is expanded, it may be helpful to request a copyedit at WP:GOCE to clean these things up.

Check that your references support the cited content. The current ref 70 should support the similarities between Maslow and Csikszentmihalyi, but it doesn't mention Maslow as far as I can tell. There is some close paraphrasing from ref 65 ("to be attained not in this life, but in the next").

I notice a few uses of claim, claims or claimed. See WP:SAY.

When you introduce a person's ideas, it is helpful to state their occupation ("Historian Darrin McMahon"). On this topic, this is especially helpful when the person is not a psychologist.

Summary

Right now the article is an interesting read but far away from meeting the Good Article criteria. Since a GA nomination is intended to be a quick and lightweight process, it makes the most sense to close this nomination for right now. (See this explanation of the approach to articles that are far from meeting criteria.) The nominator or other editors can work on the issues identified above at their leisure and then nominate the article again at any point. Larry Hockett (Talk) 11:09, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

thanks for your work and consideration on this. fully understand your view. JCJC777 (talk) 01:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)