![]() | IKEA effect was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (July 16, 2017). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
First sentence. "place a disproportionately high value on products they partially created" Next. "The price is low for IKEA products largely because they take labor out of the equation"
I'm not saying the effect isn't real but the way the article is written makes it sound like 'IKEA CEO bothered about their furniture gaining value after assembly by the customer, when ideally the value should act like used car, ie. drop once out of the shop'. But isn't that complete non-sense? If the car had to be assembled by the customer by hand, SHOULDN'T it have "disproportionately" higher value compared to car assembled by either robots or cheapest workers you could find (as the CEO)? Of course if flaws are spotted in the assembly then the value drops but that applies to both.
It just reads like sour grapes from capitalists that don't want any value increase to happen after the consumer/customer gets the product, because that would mean the business "has left money on the table", in theory anyway. The reality is of course that is only true IF you can increase the net profit by adding delivery and assembly on it. But then it might turn out IKEA isn't as "cheap" as it purports to be... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.155.24.195 ( talk) 22:36, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
I can’t find where the linked research article states that, and I wonder how that could have been achieved. Actually, the article says: “It is possible, however, that these results do not indicate that our participants truly believed that the market price of their creation was $0.23, but merely that they were willing to overbid for their creation to avoid losing it”, which implies they knew which origamis were theirs. Palpalpalpal ( talk) 06:54, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Here's something that might be included, if good sources can be found. I have heard that when the first commercial cake mixes were introduced, the only thing the consumer has to add was water. The cake mixes were not very popular. Then a manufacturer reformulated so the consumer had to measure and add a couple of ingredients, such as eggs and oil. Apparently these cake mixes were much more popular, supposedly because it felt more like "real" baking to the consumer. ike9898 ( talk) 16:01, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Bungle ( talk · contribs) 16:58, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
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 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)
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.
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 |
![]() |
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)
![]() | IKEA effect was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (July 16, 2017). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
First sentence. "place a disproportionately high value on products they partially created" Next. "The price is low for IKEA products largely because they take labor out of the equation"
I'm not saying the effect isn't real but the way the article is written makes it sound like 'IKEA CEO bothered about their furniture gaining value after assembly by the customer, when ideally the value should act like used car, ie. drop once out of the shop'. But isn't that complete non-sense? If the car had to be assembled by the customer by hand, SHOULDN'T it have "disproportionately" higher value compared to car assembled by either robots or cheapest workers you could find (as the CEO)? Of course if flaws are spotted in the assembly then the value drops but that applies to both.
It just reads like sour grapes from capitalists that don't want any value increase to happen after the consumer/customer gets the product, because that would mean the business "has left money on the table", in theory anyway. The reality is of course that is only true IF you can increase the net profit by adding delivery and assembly on it. But then it might turn out IKEA isn't as "cheap" as it purports to be... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.155.24.195 ( talk) 22:36, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
I can’t find where the linked research article states that, and I wonder how that could have been achieved. Actually, the article says: “It is possible, however, that these results do not indicate that our participants truly believed that the market price of their creation was $0.23, but merely that they were willing to overbid for their creation to avoid losing it”, which implies they knew which origamis were theirs. Palpalpalpal ( talk) 06:54, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Here's something that might be included, if good sources can be found. I have heard that when the first commercial cake mixes were introduced, the only thing the consumer has to add was water. The cake mixes were not very popular. Then a manufacturer reformulated so the consumer had to measure and add a couple of ingredients, such as eggs and oil. Apparently these cake mixes were much more popular, supposedly because it felt more like "real" baking to the consumer. ike9898 ( talk) 16:01, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Bungle ( talk · contribs) 16:58, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
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 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)
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.
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 |
![]() |
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)