Talk:The g Factor: The Science of Mental Ability

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Statistics

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.StatisticsWikipedia:WikiProject StatisticsTemplate:WikiProject StatisticsStatistics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Intelligence Citations Bibliography for Articles Related to IQ Testing

This stub needs a great deal of expansion. You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in those issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 14:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retitled article to make clear that this article is about a book.

No other changes, just retitled article (by article "move") to make clear that the article is about a book. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 16:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

I'm glad this article has been expanded recently, but it appears that the whole article is cited to just one source. This book has over 2,000 citations on Google Scholar, so there's no shortage of sources available for the article to use. Would it be possible to add some other sources, perhaps for information about the book's reception? Zeromus1 (talk) 00:30, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know of no other source that summarizes the contents of the book in such detail, so I don't think it's problematic that the Summary section relies on just that source. Psycoloquy published a number of reviews of the book in 1999 and 2000, and they and other reviews could be used to write about how the book was received.--Victor Chmara (talk) 09:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check for commentary on this book in the sources I have been reading recently (including rereading this book itself). The article deserves expansion, and there are surely sources I already have at hand that comment on the book and its reception among scholars other than the late author. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Psycholoquy external link points to reviews of the book (which were requested by another editor)

I see our last talk page discussion here was about finding other sources for this article, and I am happy to do that. The Psycholoquy precis of the book points to several independent reviews, and many of the books I have in my office comment on the findings discussed in the book. (Not to mention that I also have the book itself in my office.) With my library access, I should be able to find most of the cited reviews of the book, and I fully agree that the article richly deserves to be expanded with more sources. P.S. I just adjusted verb tenses in the article here to reflect that the book was published more than a decade ago (more than a decade before the author's death) so it is now a voice from the past. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am open to reviews that say anything about the reception of the book. We need to add this part and include some more sources in the rest.MicroMacroMania (talk) 22:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]