Talk:Suggestibility

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 August 2019 and 12 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kbarlow18. Peer reviewers: Brigpaulson15, 10658513uvu, Jessica Cragun, Aewlarsen, Marypolatis, Killersrampage, MiguelG16, Baysibenwiki.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

Aren't there any sources or references for this information?--Psients 00:20, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"In the last years suggestibility has been studied in relation to the attendibility of child eyewitness report." This sentence sounds horribly confusing. What is meant by "attendibility"? --71.33.68.247 02:34, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is lots of good scientific research on suggestion and suggestibility, much of it published in hypnosis journals such as the International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, but lots in more mainstream psychology journals too MWhalley

LOADS available in abstract-only form on Google scholar. All the big name journals plus some of the smaller more specialist ones.

This article has a huge biblio of references but only 3 footnotes to it. I just did an edit and am going to add some citations soon, as I found it very very biased. Why is this W chap important? He doesn't seem to know his subject matter very well.

Hiphypnotisthooray (talk) 23:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I don't know if it's just me, but it seems like most of the article was confusing and dealt only with (or mostly with) hypnosis, when in fact those other three definitions are equally important, I would think. I think subtopics like "Suggestibility in hypnosis," "Suggestibility in children," etc. are needed.209.244.30.221 (talk) 20:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The Quote attributed to Aristotle, although all over the Web, is false. http://publicnoises.blogspot.com/2009/02/aristotle-and-accuracy.html --Graham Gibson-Smith (talk) 10:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Peer Review

This article is a little confusing to me, given the fact that there are numerous statements that don’t have citations to go with them. The overall layout of the article is confusing as well. The lead section gives a definition, which I had to re-read so that I could understand it. The section that follows the lead is redundant because it gives the definition again. The author wrote different types of suggestibility, but in my opinion, they should be stated in the lead section. I have a suggestion for the author, and that is to change the layout so that the transitions to each section flow better. The most important thing that the author could do to improve this article is to add references to the statements that don’t currently have one. There are also a few statements that don’t feel neutral. A lot of the information in the article comes from one or two sources, so it isn’t from different points of view. Having the correct citations is important because students could be using this article as research for a project, and a lot of the information is inaccurate or misleading. Brigpaulson15 (talk) 02:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review

The article has a great start to it, there are just a few structural problems that need to be worked out. This concept was hard for me to wrap my head around. The ideas and wording were well-formed but lacked overall depth. I feel that the first section should have had more depth and description to them. I would have also worded the definition a little differently. It is a hard concept to grasp in this context. I did like all of the different subheadings and topics, they illustrated all of the different ways that suggestibility is applied. References are on the short end, could use more. - Jessica Cragun

Peer Review

I really like this article, it's so interesting! I think that it is well-formatted and well written with the information that is available. I would say that I think that some history behind Suggestibility could be added as there is really nothing listed in the article currently. This would provide more sources as well, and could provide a background that could be referenced for current practices. I also think that images and some visual aspect could really enhance your article! I think that you guys will do a great job on this article, and I look forward to how it is formatted and updated. - Tonilynn Ludwig — Preceding unsigned comment added by 10658513uvu (talk • contribs) 21:35, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review

I thought the articles starts off great but then I get lost as I continue to read further and further down. I do think a lot of time and effort was put into these changes and I think you are off to a great start. I would just maybe add some history to the page and maybe some more links to show more sources and back up to the page itself. I just really think with a few things to help tune it up you should be able to get it to where it needs to be. I like how I could go down and click through the headings and different topics that you are showing or suggesting. Overall, I think you are on the right track. - Mary Polatis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marypolatis (talk • contribs) 03:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review Response

Thanks for all your feedback on my article. It is helpful to have fresh eyes look over it and give suggestions on what can be improved. I appreciate the time you all took to do that. Multiple people commented on how this article lacked depth and that is something I am really going to work on in the next few weeks. I want to make sure people can understand the importance of this subject and feel like they comprehend the concept well. Tonilynn and Mary suggested that I include a history of the concept and I think that would be a great way to add more depth to the article so I will make sure to add that in the final draft. After reading your comments, my main course of action is to clean up the flow of this article. The article’s lead can be clearer for the reader to be able to understand what will be included in the overall article. I will add a history and I will make sure that all the statements have proper sources to back up the claims. I again appreciate all the advice and take them all into account as I continue editing this article. Kbarlow18 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:33, 27 October 2019 (UTC)