Talk:Ten-year Tennessee study shows preschool associated with poorer student performance

Unworkeable

Unfortunately, this article is unpublishable as it stands because it is only supported by one other source (NPR) that is a. not the paper itself, and b. covers the specific event (not World Population Review's secondary figure). This means that the article cannot be published unless another source is found. Sadly, many rather niche events are not covered by mainstream media, making our synthesis role rather difficult. --JJLiu112 (talk) 04:52, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@JJLiu112: I believe you will find the Brookings Institute sufficiently independent: [1] Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Review of revision 4661204 [Passed]

Revision 4661204 of this article has been reviewed by JJLiu112 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 22:45, 11 February 2022 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: VERY solid effort. Could do with some quotes & added info, but c'est assez. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 4661204 of this article has been reviewed by JJLiu112 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 22:45, 11 February 2022 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: VERY solid effort. Could do with some quotes & added info, but c'est assez. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

"Disputes"

@JJLiu112: I am concerned about the term "disputes" in the lede. It means a bit like "to argue" or "to say that a previous idea is wrong." It may constitute Wikinews projecting a tone onto Dr. Farran's team that they do not show in their own writing or interviews. Farran cites "soul-searching" and volunteers several reasons why the study doesn't necessarily contradict previous works directly. The abstract itself is pretty just-the-facts. I'm picturing less a tugboat pushing directly against an iceberg to make it stop and reverse course and more a tugboat brushing against it from the side to cause it to change course. I think "raises doubts" or something else to that effect might be more appropriate. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:47, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@Darkfrog24: I find 'dispute' helps ensure readers understand the results are a marked deviation from past results. Understand in preserving NPOV it is ensuring we are not disparaging the researchers, but also acknowledging the study draws a conclusion: plainly, from results and figures, that is the inverse of the other papers' conclusions. Most studies do not present their results as indisputable, and certainly 'discussion' sections are no stranger to sociology papers. But it stands the conclusion reached by Farran et al, iterated in the abstract, is more than simply "raising doubts", as if it didn't read "showed that" and "found" and instead "could show" and "may find". --JJLiu112 (talk) 05:10, 15 February 2022 (UTC)