Talk:IKEA effect/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Bungle (talk · contribs) 16:58, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Pre review

I saw this article in the GA nominee list, having known about the existance of such an effect so thought it may be rather interesting to review the article and better understand it. To my surprise and perhaps disappointment, it became apparent very quickly that I would not be reviewing an article worthy of wikipedia inclusion, but rather a collection of work from other people, excessively directly quoted to such an extent that it seemed more like someone's naive and amateur attempt at a university research work assignment. The copyvio additionally picked up so many potential matches that it is not possible to review this article, without the feeling that I am reviewing other's people's professional work, merely duplicated elsewhere with little paraphrasing. Some direct quoting is fine if the purpose requires the reader to understand the specific viewpoints of an individual, but the extent it's used here is beyond excessive.

Aside from that, there seems to be some controversy at the moment regarding article quick-fails and how they should be determined. I feel this article significantly falls short on the sources/references aspect (as plagiarism, despite the quoting), yet it may be that this could be addressed if time is spent paraphrasing the text. Some very brief observations:

• I would like to see alot less sections that are a sentence or two in length - you don't need a section for every slight difference in perspective or change in effect
• I don't see how the "effect in animals" section has any relevance (irrespective of its inclusion on the heavily overused source)
• The lead should be a summary of the article, rather than a section in its own right. It should cover aspects of the prose.
• I don't like the fact that a single source is referenced 25 times
• That first source, referenced 25 times, has some copyright message on the first page which may be worth noting - I feel this article, in its current arrangement, may be in violation of those terms
• The image represents furniture in an IKEA store. It doesn't necessarily portray the effect accurately being described in the article, particularly as the effect isn't limited simply to IKEA furniture, or indeed IKEA itself

I think this article, in its current state, should not have been listed as a GA nomination, but I am curious to see if over the next week, it can be substantially rewritten so as to be eligible for a thorough review. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:58, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Review

I see edits have been made since my pre review, so i'll now do a more thorough read through and post my observations below. I have allowed over a week since my pre-review for improvements and amendments to be made.

Lead

• Would the Template:psychology sidebar be an appropriate addition here?
• Don't need to reference the first sentence, as everything in the lead should be a summary of the prose, itself already referenced
• "The name derives from the Swedish manufacturer and furniture retailer IKEA" - this sentence makes it sound like IKEA themselves created the term?
• "One source has described".. Avoid terms like this, especially as there is no attribution in this paragraph to who actually said it
• This whole paragraph is still a direct quote from the source material rather than being paraphrased, which it easily could be. The lead therefore is totally unacceptable, as it neither offers a summary of the wider article content, nor is it entirely accurate and clear. Refer to WP:LEAD.

History

• "The IKEA effect was identified and named.." - I accept it may have been named in this research experiment, but was the psychology behind the effect itself identified at this time too, or much earlier? I suspect earlier, but it just hadn't been documented to any great extent
• "They defined the IKEA effect as.." - this to me isn't a definition of the effect. If you were to say that quote to someone, wanting to know what the IKEA effect is, word for word, they'd be none the wiser afterwards
• "This phenomenon had been observed by Leon Festinger (1957).." - this suggests the effect was known, to some degree, over half a century ago, which totally contradicts the opening line of the section which starts "The IKEA effect was identified and named.."
• "..observed by Leon Festinger (1957) and in realms ranging from psychotherapy (Axsom & Cooper, 1985) and brainwashing (Schein, 1956)" - I have no idea what the dates represent. Are they dates of studies/research by the individuals noted? Entirely unclear.
• "Product designers were familiar with the IKEA effect long before it was given a name.." - as above
• "Norton and his fellow researchers also cited the Build-a-Bear product" - this product appeared to be introduced in 1997, but follows cake mix history from the 1950s and is before discussions on studies from the same era. The placement of this paragraph is anachronistic and should be moved accordingly
• The first paragraph may be better suited in the lead, given it refers to research conducted in 2011, whereas the prose afterwards actually discusses the real history behind it. This can then be re-iterated at the end of the section in a concluding manner as to how it came to be named as such
• "A 1959 study by Aronson and Mills that has been described as a "classic"" - described as a classic by who, and why? Who are Aronson and Mills, and what was their research specifically about? Very vague.
• "Citing other researchers' work" - another vague sentence opener. The paragraph again falls foul of excessive and unnecessary direct quoting

Images

• I note that the image previously present, depicting an IKEA store has been removed as per my comment, but no other images have been added? Images of people constructing their own furniture or beloved possession may at least add some variety to the article. There is an entire section over at commons

Reference

• The first reference could be reduced in the amount of times it appears to be called, by removing instances where it follows on from an instance of itself (i.e. in first paragraph of History section, it's the only ref called (twice), so you only need it at the end of the paragraph).
• Given the amount of times the first reference is used (which is a journal), it would be beneficial to convert this reference type to one which allows for expressing page numbers, in the same way a book reference would be used. It would make it easier to find the source material in the journal, given there are multiple pages

Early conclusion

Once I got to the end of the History section, I chose to stop the review there. Whilst some effort has been made to paraphrase since my pre-review was posted, I feel this article is messy, ambiguous, in parts infactual and overall still reliant upon direct quotes attributed to a single research journal. That journal itself refers to earlier works that maybe could have been found and referenced individually. The edits made since my pre-review did not go far enough to satisfy the concerns I expressed at the time, although an improvement none the less.

I feel the additions to this article that brought it into the GA nominations territory have been hasty, as evident by the clear evidence of copy+paste quoting, as opposed to being rewritten and expressed in a manner befitting of an encyclopedic article.

My decision to therefore fail the article for GA is based on the criteria:

✗ Fail	Well written: Much is still directly quoted, so could be argued that it's not actually written at all in the manner it should be
✗ Fail	Verifiable: Alot of content has a reference next to it, but as noted in my review above, not always clear. I am still dubious about whether it fails copyright/plagiarism
✓ Pass	Broad in coverage: I felt what I read, and a skim through of the rest, seemed to be relatively broad
Not sure.	Neutral: Despite the heavy reliance on a single source, it seems to cover all aspects of the journal equally. Other works are referenced, albeit to a lesser extent
✓ Pass	Stable: Probably the only criteria I am entirely satisfied to say this passes on
✗ Fail	Images: As noted, this article could have images added that are relevant. Graphs of statistics would count too.

Still needs alot of work. My comments above are a starting point for where I feel changes need to be made. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:46, 16 July 2017 (UTC)