Wikipedia:Peer review/Precognition/archive1
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe that this article has potential however I'm not sure what else should be done to it. I would like contributors to read the article and then make suggestions on the talk page of the article, or alternatively try to improve it themselves.
Thanks,
Wikidudeman (talk) 17:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 01:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Review by User:Midnightdreary Considering the nature of this topic, this is certainly a well-done article! Here are some suggestions.
I like the choice for the main image; I wouldn't be able to think of anything better. My personal preference, though, would be to have the caption in smaller text. In the intro, consider making the first paragraph a little less wordy. After that, get into more specific terminology. I think your second paragraph is a little rough. The first line there seems to suggest that all those who are skeptical believe in selection bias or whatever. It's also a very long sentence. A more appropriate intro to that 'graph could just be: "There is much skepticism about the validty of precognition." It also helps because it introduces skepticism before explaining the reason for it.
History and research could probably be expanded further. Additional references will probably reveal more information to add in. I'd also recommend more footnotes (here and throughout). As always, the more sources and citations in an article, the better. I'm also wondering if there are earlier references to precognition in history. There certainly must be notable historical figures who were precognitive (Nostradamus, for one).
The Skepticism section is a very important section for this article and I was glad to see it! Even so, I'm sure there is more skepticism that could be added. Again further sources will help expand this. The entire section is also very wordy. Consider using simpler sentences or breaking up. For example: The existence of precognition is disputed by some who believe that there is a lack of scientific evidence supporting the existence of precognition and who contend that examples of what are commonly thought to be precognition can be explained naturally without evoking supernatural abilities. - That's a mouthful.
For further expansion, I wonder if there are sources out there talking about rationalizing "true" precognition (i.e. brain studies of alleged precogs or some scientific study that actually lends credence to claims of precognition). The studies that are mentioned in the Research section don't really show one way or the other.
My only comment about "In fiction" is to consider more mythological references. I'm sure ancient Greek folklore has some stories.
Well, great work moving this up a notch. Keep up the good work! --Midnightdreary 23:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- 1. What do you mean caption with smaller text?
- 2. Most of the info that could be added to this article edits in the Psychic article and adding any new information would likely be redundant between the two. Wikidudeman (talk) 23:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- Psychic visions are only those obtained though the use of psi by the viewer. Precognition may be through other means as well. the entry on psychic should be limited to that which falls under Parapsychology. Precognition can include other things such as accounts in mythology. - perfectblue 15:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- perfectblue is correct. Precognitin can be perceived via dreams and hypnosis. BRiCKDuDE102692 02:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Review by Perfectblue
Okay, firstly, the history section is rather too brief. It mentions that there have been claims made and experiments done, but it really could do with going into more detail. There is a lot of material out there that could be used but isn't being touched. Also, the history section doesn't start until 1927, whereas there there are accounts of precognition going back millennia. How about some information on Nostradamus, or the Roman Oracles? What about Biblical prophecy - Seven fat years, seven lean years, anybody? They aren't even given a wikilink, let alone a sentence or two.
There should also be something about precognition in popular belief in the modern age. Countless members of the population at large have made claims about precognition, yet not one of them even gains a mention. How about including some of the best known ones. What about the people who claim to have predicted 9/11 or to have gotten off of planes/boats that were famously lost? How about some famous debunked claims? The article could also do with correctly putting belief in precognition into perspective. For example, the results of a survey showing exactly how many people actually believe in it. Do 99% of American's believe in precognition, or do 99% think that it's bunk?
The skeptics section also lacks credibility. It has only 2 citations. One of which is from Carrol whose primary area of experience is social psychology, not parapsychology or scientific skepticism. How about some more sources. How about some alternative ideas. For example, selection bias is all well and good, but it is only a small factor in things such as engineered hoaxes etc.
The fiction section also reads like a trivia section. It needs to concentrate on some well known examples and to explain the part that they play in their particular fiction.
What is also missing is any real explanation of the mechanism behind precognition. There are pleanty of cranks and loons out there, plus some physicists too. Are people viewing a parallel universe that's slightly ahead of our own, or are they experiencing delusions?
perfectblue 15:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- You make many good points. It has been stated that for every action that is taken, there are many parallel universes that take a different action and are created by the action. This is a very confusing concept, but this sense of alternate realities explains how many authentic clairvoyants predict a future that does not happen. It seems that the mind can hurdle into the future and past, if only for a moment, and across the universe. BRiCKDuDE102692 02:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)