Talk:Automation bias/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Georgejdorner (talk · contribs) 06:31, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I began this review by reading the article (of course). The problem being, I couldn't read very far before the article fell apart. The division of Automation bias into errors of omission and commission was a promising start. Then there is that succession of single sentence sections that loses me. I get the feeling that these sentences are all aspects of some point the editor(s) are trying to make, but I'm darned if I can figure what that point is supposed to be. As an offline editor, I would be red penciling a whole string of section titles because they seem like unneeded intrusions. As it is, this article is poorly enough written it becomes incomprehensible.

Sorry, but this is a gross failure of the first criteria. I wish the editor(s) the best of fortune in revamping it. Perhaps somehow sorting the various examples of bias into omissions and commissions? The subject could be intriguing. However, I believe the systemic problems are extensive enough it does not merit a hold for repair. At present I am not sure it even deserves the current Start class assessment.Georgejdorner (talk) 06:31, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]