Not much more to add. |
Dankonikolic (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
::This isn't my academic field. All I can do is look at Google Scholar, and count. (I suppose you could say that looking at such indexes and counting <u>is</u> one of my academic specialties, more pompously known as [[bibliometrics]]!) [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=ideaesthesia&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C33&as_sdtp= The listing for ideaesthesia] shows only 27 uses in all of the scientific literature, and all of them in articles that rather few people have cited. There's an alternate spelling, and the [ideasthesia listing for "ideasthesia"] shows even fewer. And one of them says they got the term from the WP article! Looking at the[https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=IcNIsnsAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=sra GScholar results for Danko Nikolić], he has some very highly cited papers, but none of them are on this. There's enough to make this more than FRINGE, or subject to deletion as a neologism, but the article gives the mistaken impression that it's a widely-used term. To say "However, most phenomena that have inadvertently been linked to synesthesia, in fact are induced by the semantic representations i.e., the meaning, of the stimulus[2][3][4][5][6] rather than by its sensory properties, as would be implied by the term synesthesia" is not really justified. It should read, "According to some workers [2][3][4][5][6], most phenomena.... " The general statement can only be used when its accepted as such by major secondary quality review articles or standard textbooks, unrelated to the originators. '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 04:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC) |
::This isn't my academic field. All I can do is look at Google Scholar, and count. (I suppose you could say that looking at such indexes and counting <u>is</u> one of my academic specialties, more pompously known as [[bibliometrics]]!) [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=ideaesthesia&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C33&as_sdtp= The listing for ideaesthesia] shows only 27 uses in all of the scientific literature, and all of them in articles that rather few people have cited. There's an alternate spelling, and the [ideasthesia listing for "ideasthesia"] shows even fewer. And one of them says they got the term from the WP article! Looking at the[https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=IcNIsnsAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=sra GScholar results for Danko Nikolić], he has some very highly cited papers, but none of them are on this. There's enough to make this more than FRINGE, or subject to deletion as a neologism, but the article gives the mistaken impression that it's a widely-used term. To say "However, most phenomena that have inadvertently been linked to synesthesia, in fact are induced by the semantic representations i.e., the meaning, of the stimulus[2][3][4][5][6] rather than by its sensory properties, as would be implied by the term synesthesia" is not really justified. It should read, "According to some workers [2][3][4][5][6], most phenomena.... " The general statement can only be used when its accepted as such by major secondary quality review articles or standard textbooks, unrelated to the originators. '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 04:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC) |
||
:::Hi all. I have been mentioned as a protagonist in this but am not sure that I have much more to add on top of what has already been said. I think I would only reiterate the comments that I made [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ADid_you_know_nominations%2FIdeasthesia&diff=651318515&oldid=651300964 here]. Cheers [[User:U3964057|Andrew]] ([[User talk:U3964057|talk]]) 04:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC) |
:::Hi all. I have been mentioned as a protagonist in this but am not sure that I have much more to add on top of what has already been said. I think I would only reiterate the comments that I made [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ADid_you_know_nominations%2FIdeasthesia&diff=651318515&oldid=651300964 here]. Cheers [[User:U3964057|Andrew]] ([[User talk:U3964057|talk]]) 04:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC) |
||
I have made the change proposed by DGG. Please do not destroy the page on ideasthesia. This would be quite a loss. I am willing to improve it to whatever degree you may find necessary. ([[User:Dankonikolic|Danko]] ([[User talk:Dankonikolic|talk]]) 15:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)) |
Revision as of 15:32, 26 April 2015
Ideasthesia
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result pending
The article was elevated to GA status in January 2015, the primary contributor to this article Dankonikolic nominated this article for DYK ( Template:Did you know nominations/Ideasthesia ), where issues not addressed in the GA Review by Jaguar were brought up and and discussed by Carlojoseph14, Victuallers, BlueMoonset, EEng, Crisco_1492, myself, and more specifically by U3964057, who brought up the WP:COI and WP:PRIMARY issues. Due to these unresolved issues Allen3 did not pass the nomination. Therefore, as these issues effect Criteria #2 & Criteria #4 of WP:GACR, I am opening up this article to community reassessment.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- Responding to ping. On a very superficial evaluation, this seems way too much of a pet neologism. I summon DGG who I believe will have a good handle on evaluating uptake beyond the term's originator. EEng (talk) 04:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- This isn't my academic field. All I can do is look at Google Scholar, and count. (I suppose you could say that looking at such indexes and counting is one of my academic specialties, more pompously known as bibliometrics!) The listing for ideaesthesia shows only 27 uses in all of the scientific literature, and all of them in articles that rather few people have cited. There's an alternate spelling, and the [ideasthesia listing for "ideasthesia"] shows even fewer. And one of them says they got the term from the WP article! Looking at theGScholar results for Danko Nikolić, he has some very highly cited papers, but none of them are on this. There's enough to make this more than FRINGE, or subject to deletion as a neologism, but the article gives the mistaken impression that it's a widely-used term. To say "However, most phenomena that have inadvertently been linked to synesthesia, in fact are induced by the semantic representations i.e., the meaning, of the stimulus[2][3][4][5][6] rather than by its sensory properties, as would be implied by the term synesthesia" is not really justified. It should read, "According to some workers [2][3][4][5][6], most phenomena.... " The general statement can only be used when its accepted as such by major secondary quality review articles or standard textbooks, unrelated to the originators. DGG ( talk ) 04:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I have made the change proposed by DGG. Please do not destroy the page on ideasthesia. This would be quite a loss. I am willing to improve it to whatever degree you may find necessary. (Danko (talk) 15:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC))