Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Psychology (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page 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.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
Index · Statistics · Log


Peer Review for Proxemics[edit]

Hi Everyone, I am currently editing the page on proxemics for a Communications graduate course and I could use some help. If anyone wouldn't mind reviewing the article I'd greatly appreciate it. User:ebrock818 9:43 April 2, 2012

Peer Review for Artificial Grammar Learning[edit]

Hello all! I recently made some edits on the article for artificial grammar learning and I could use some feedback. User:Amylynn0815 3:42 April 23, 2013

Good article nomination for "IQ classification"[edit]

The good article nominations in psychology include a nomination of IQ classification, which was greatly expanded about a year ago. Your help in reviewing the latest article from this project to be nominated for good article consideration is greatly appreciated. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:41, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

The good article nomination process asks for patience on the part of nominators, so I will continue to be patient, but I wanted to remind editors who work on this project that the IQ classification article, within the scope of this project, is one of the good article nominations in psychology, so if this topic is of interest to you, I'd be glad to communicate with you about sources during an article review. Thanks for your kind help. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Help reviewing “Editing psychology articles” handout for student editors?[edit]

(Apologies for the cross-post.) Introducing myself for those of you I haven’t interacted with before — I’m LiAnna Davis, and I’m in charge of communications for the Wiki Education Foundation, the nonprofit that runs the Wikipedia Education Program in the United States and Canada. One of my goals this year is to create a series of discipline-specific support materials for students and instructors participating in our program. Given the challenges some psychology students have had in the past, I’m starting with psychology, and I need some help. I’ve created a page in my userspace explaining more about what I’m trying to do, and then added an outline of the preliminary content I’d like to include.

Since psychology is not my specialty, I would really like to get feedback from experienced content contributors in psychology to make sure I’m providing accurate advice to students. I’m looking for several people who’ve contributed content to psychology articles to review the advice and offer feedback — please help if you can! I need all comments by Monday, July 14. Please leave comments on the talk page rather than here so they’re all in the same place. Thanks! --LiAnna (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Revised draft is ready for review. I'd like any additional feedback by July 23, so we can get it off to the designer and get it printed before the start of the term. Thanks. --LiAnna (Wiki Ed) (talk) 04:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I just uploaded the designed file for the new psychology 4-page brochure to Commons: File:Editing Wikipedia articles on psychology.pdf. I welcome any final suggestions in the next few days before we print them! Please add comments on this talk page. --LiAnna (Wiki Ed) (talk) 08:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Nuked Psychopedagogy[edit]

Just warning you that Psychopedagogy was almost entirely copy/pasted from a book chapter. After removing the copyright violation, there are only three sentences left. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Madeleine McCann requests for comments[edit]

I have started two requests for comments at Talk:Madeleine McCann. 159.92.1.1 (talk) 18:54, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

It looks like they are located at Talk:Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Did you mean to post this to WikiProject Psychology? I'm unclear on the connection to psychology. EricEnfermero HOWDY! 07:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:WikiProject Autism articles and the article Introspection[edit]

Introspection was tagged with the {{WikiProject Autism}} tag. I read through the article and it doesn't seem related to autism so I removed the tag but was reverted.

Does this project agree with me? If so, please removed the tag. Parabolooidal (talk) 21:08, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

New key for autism project: Autism[edit]

[[:Category:WikiProject Psychology|Autism]] Is this part of the Psychology Project? Parabolooidal (talk) 02:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Obesophobia[edit]

nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obesophobia Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation hiring an experienced science editor[edit]

Wiki Education Foundation is hiring two experienced Wikipedia editors for part-time (20 hours/week) positions: Wikipedia Content Expert, Sciences and Wikipedia Content Expert, Humanities. The focus of these positions is to help student editors do better work, through everything from advice and cleanup on individual articles, to helping instructors find appropriate topics for the students to work on, to tracking the overall quality of work from student editors and finding ways to improve it. We're looking for clueful, friendly editors who like to focus on article content, but also have a strong working knowledge of policies and guidelines, and who have experience with DYK, GAN, and other quality processes.--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission[edit]

Psychology experts: is Draft:Senior Peer Counseling notable? --Cerebellum (talk) 17:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Attachment Theory in relation to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs model[edit]

Can someone please investigate the value and validity of this model, particularly as to the claim that it supersedes the Hierarchical model ?

As far as I can tell, 'Attachment theory' per se is not a successor to Maslows' Hierarchy of Needs model.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs

While Maslow's model attempts to place a set of developmental stages relative to a person's age and intellectual and emotional growth; Attachment Theory does nothing of the sort.

Attachment theory is at best pedagogical focused with only a small aspect dedicated to development in later adult stages. It says nothing about the internal dynamics of a person's psychosocial development relative to their experiential settings.

The links offered to support the claim over Attachment Theory border on the self-serving. They are highly debatable; particularly with regards to claim that it has replaced Maslow's Hierarchical model.

I should add, that I am a trained educator (Androgogy) with a background in Educational Psychology.

Please consider removing or deleting the reference to 'Attachment Theory' in its present location.

At best, it could be inserted in the criticism area of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.136.46.98 (talk) 01:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have trouble understanding what you are saying. Which Wikipedia article are you criticizing, and which part of it do you think ought to be changed? Best regards, Looie496 (talk) 01:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Philip Zimbardo of the Stanford prison experiment[edit]

The article Philip Zimbardo states:

Zimbardo attacked the BBC study, making claims that something must have been wrong since the results were different and even claiming they lied about how they selected who was assigned to being a prisoner or a guard.[9]

The article cites Zimbardo's commentary here which is referring to the BBC prison study found here. It seems to me that "something must have been wrong since the results were different" is an oversimplification of Zimbardo's criticism of the BBC prison study, however, this is beyond my area of expertise so I was hoping someone here might be able to take a look at it. Thanks! - Location (talk) 05:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Location. While I am not sold on the validity of Zimbardo's criticisms myself, I do agree that the wiki-content you are talking about is an unfair characterization. In fact, the entire section has some serious errors in it and I am not convinced that this topic belongs in this biographical article at all. I have boldy opted for removal at this stage. Cheers Andrew (talk) 04:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review: Basking in Reflected Glory[edit]

I think this is a great start to an article. In order to best communicate oneself, we should stray away from passive voice. Also, I found that the use of BIRGing instead of writing out "basking in reflected glory" chopped up the sentences and made it harder for me to read. If we eliminate the acronyms, I think it will read smoother. I also think that reworking some of the sentences to take a more analytic approach would improve the article. The applications section is somewhat limited, adding a new variety of examples should help enhance the reader's understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EWilkerson (talkcontribs) 14:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

It says that this wikipedia article includes a list of references but the sources are unclear. Perhaps the person who wrote the page can go and double check to make sure the references are still valid and are cited in a correct format.

It also says that this article is written like a personal reflection or opinion essay.   A suggestion is to avoid any  usage of words or phrases that indicate that such as I, think, me, probably, etc.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeheliO (talkcontribs) 19:18, 22 September 2014 (UTC) 

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal[edit]

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Wilhelm Wundt nominated for level 4 vital article.[edit]

Hi all, I nominated Wilhelm Wundt for inclusion in the level 4 vital articles (ie the 10,000 most important articles on Wikipedia) in the psychologists category. See Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Expanded#Psychology

We would need at least one more vote within the next 10 days or so for inclusion (assuming there is no opposition).

Cheers. Arnoutf (talk) 17:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I think canvassing for votes is a bad idea, but it would be great idea to have more participation by members of the Psych prokject in establishing which psychology articles are vital.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Multiple Resources Questionnaire[edit]

Dear psychology experts: I have made a start at removing some of the jargon from this draft article by creating a new lead paragraph. While I have some training in this area, it was a long time ago, and I may have inadvertently introduced error. I have placed my suggested lead paragraph below the original one. Can someone who is familiar with this topic please comment? —Anne Delong (talk) 01:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Scientology sources used as a source in pages::[edit]

I've found a few pages, including the Psychology page itself using Citizens Commission on Human Rights websites as a source. I've removed them and have done a crude search on Google for other pages on Wikipedia that use them. I've removed the ones on the English language Wikipedia, but there's a few in other languages that do. Please ensure that no pages use CCHR (or any other fringe group) as a source. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 12:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know. I lose track of the names of all those cover groups for fringe activism. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia Editing Project[edit]

Hi, this is Chesivoirzr and I am doing a Wikipedia project where I have to edit articles on Developmental Psychology. My goal is to make valuable contributions to editing Wikipedia articles on Developmental Psychology. I would like to get help on the project. Could anybody give me suggestions for Developmental Psychology articles to edit? How could I improve the Wikipedia articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chesivoirzr (talkcontribs) 00:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Article Suggestions[edit]

This article needs a lot of assistance. The wording of the article comes across as a personal essay. I suggest refraining from using words such as: you, they, and instead use words such as: one, the participants. Also the definition and the example are paradoxes. I suggest for that to be corrected or be defined more directly. Lastly, the second paragraph I found the experiment to be very confusing to follow and understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeheliO (talkcontribs) 16:58, 24 October 2014 (UTC)