This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Martinphi (talk | contribs) at 02:36, 11 October 2007 (Archiving). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 02:36, 11 October 2007 by Martinphi (talk | contribs) (Archiving)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Electronic voice phenomenon article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 |
This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary. |
Electronic voice phenomenon was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Archives | ||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
We were on a roll...
We were on a roll with improving this article. Why did it all of a sudden stop? We need to stat discussing the next section now. Wikidudeman 21:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- I have to be gone for a few days starting tomorrow. I may be able to drop by, but I likely can't do any major editing. I should be back fully by the 10th or 11th. The article has been pretty stable, so there shouldn't be any reason to hurry. ——Martin (Talk Ψ Contribs) 04:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Failed GA
After reading the article, User:LuckyLouie's comments this talk page and some news articles it's clear that this article is not up to the GA standard.
While it is reasonably well written, appears to be largly accurate and verifyable it fails on a few counts
- Neutral point of view - not only is the article tagged as disputed but the balance in the article does not reflect the view of the larger world. The article does not adequately present the mainstream viewpoint on EVP and the lead in particular is not neutrally written. At the very least I would expect an entire paragraph of the lead presenting the mainstream view that this is a fringe, unreal phenomenon. The lead for Flat Earth is not a bad guide (though not a great one either )
- Well written - there are lots of convoluted parts that need copyediting. Sentences like The question of whether or not audio recordings thought to be EVP are just noise mistaken by an individual listener to be words, or actually form words, has been addressed with the use of listening panels' are unduly difficult to read.
- Factual - the Criticism section appears to be a synthesis of viewpoints created in wikipedia. There are other sections that also seem to suffer from this problem
- Style - at the least the references need to follow a common style.
I do suggest that the balance between proponents and criticism be clearly looked at. The article needs to settle down, the article made neutral then best to go to peer review. --Peripitus (Talk) 11:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you, we will take your points into consideration.
- The article lead already has 1/3 space devoted to the skeptical point of view, as you suggest- a full paragraph. The lead is already much more devoted to being skeptical than Flat Earth, in my reading. The difference here is that the Flat Earth idea has been specifically (sourcably) studied and refuted by science, and EVP has not.
- We do need to make the sentences easier to understand, I can see that.
- Our problem here is that we can find lots of sources for EVP, and almost none for skepticism. The article is factually written, and I believe that it is NPOV in the sense that the paranormality of EVP is not promoted. But the skepticism section is probably OR as you say.
- If you think there is a POV expressed in the article, could you tell us how to fix it? We have been unable to source the "view of the larger world" you speak of, because EVP is ignored by nearly everyone except proponents. Thus, there just isn't any view at all, that we can source, anyway. That's why the skepticism section has OR. What would you suggest we do? Should we perhaps be more clear than we already are when we say that
- "Mainstream science has generally ignored EVP, but there are a number of non-paranormal explanations, which account for EVP by such mechanisms as radio interference or the tendency of the human brain to recognize patterns in random stimuli. These include:"
- This has been one of the main quandaries of the article, and anything you can think of to solve this problem would be welcome. ——Martin (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages controversial topics
- Former good article nominees
- Old requests for peer review
- All unassessed articles
- B-Class paranormal articles
- Unknown-importance paranormal articles
- Past paranormal collaborations
- WikiProject Paranormal articles
- B-Class Skepticism articles
- Mid-importance Skepticism articles
- WikiProject Skepticism articles
- B-Class Spirituality articles
- Unknown-importance Spirituality articles