Trusted, Automoderated users
17,538
edits
Talk:IQ: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
mNo edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 68: | Line 68: | ||
::: I have not much to say about this except that this is a rather drastic response to a medium-sized edit of an unfinished article that is not A-class, let alone categorized by quality at all. Unfinished articles benefit from reorganization and larger edits. I did not remove any information, I only removed some redundancies like the repetition on how IQ is related to various measures of success, as well as some redundant wording. [[User:Bibipi|Bibipi]] ([[User talk:Bibipi|talk]]) 15:26, 29 April 2021 (UTC) | ::: I have not much to say about this except that this is a rather drastic response to a medium-sized edit of an unfinished article that is not A-class, let alone categorized by quality at all. Unfinished articles benefit from reorganization and larger edits. I did not remove any information, I only removed some redundancies like the repetition on how IQ is related to various measures of success, as well as some redundant wording. [[User:Bibipi|Bibipi]] ([[User talk:Bibipi|talk]]) 15:26, 29 April 2021 (UTC) | ||
: Yeah, it's actually very good. I was just annoyed that you completely altered the lede while I was gone tbh. I think four paragraphs, (what wikipedia advises) is a good general guide to optimal lede length. And I think the article is worthy of being A-class classified. I'll unlock soon and you can change what you don't like. [[User:Altmark22|Altmark22]] ([[User talk:Altmark22|talk]]) 23:07, 11 May 2021 (UTC) | : Yeah, it's actually very good. I was just annoyed that you completely altered the lede while I was gone tbh. I think four paragraphs, (what wikipedia advises) is a good general guide to optimal lede length. And I think the article is worthy of being A-class classified. I'll unlock soon and you can change what you don't like. [[User:Altmark22|Altmark22]] ([[User talk:Altmark22|talk]]) 23:07, 11 May 2021 (UTC) | ||
:: Your recent additions and revisions are very good, just finished reading them. It seems I messed up pretty much every figure regarding sd and percentiles, LOL. I agree on A-class. The only thing I'd improve are details like to add a figure for the re-test reliability in the lede (generally >.8 for complex IQ tests), which would still be "very high" (the "very" could then be re-added). The "dedicated" in the lede seems a bit confusing to me, because the descriptions that follow seem to apply to any IQ test, not just ones that are 'dedicated' to something. [https://books.google.com/books?id=ChNnDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA219&lpg=PA219 Simmonton's research] is relevant to the negative correlation between high achievement and RS. There are various results like [https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=8748&context=rtd this] on gifted children have a bit better motor skills, athleticism, hand-eye coordination, which might be relevant to the respective sections. [[User:Bibipi|Bibipi]] ([[User talk:Bibipi|talk]]) 17:33, 15 May 2021 (UTC) | |||
==Dysgenics== | ==Dysgenics== | ||
Article needs a section on the Woodley effect and the evidence of substantial secular declines in intelligence to give a more balanced overview of this issue as compared to the coverage of this topic on certain other wikis. | Article needs a section on the Woodley effect and the evidence of substantial secular declines in intelligence to give a more balanced overview of this issue as compared to the coverage of this topic on certain other wikis. | ||
: Agreed, that would be a good addition. [[User:Bibipi|Bibipi]] ([[User talk:Bibipi|talk]]) 17:33, 15 May 2021 (UTC) | |||