Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology

Index · Statistics · Log

Psychology articles by quality and importance
Quality	Importance
	Top	High	Mid	Low	NA	Other	???	Total
FA		3	4	11				18
FL			1	1				2
GA	5	14	27	70			10	126
B	28	178	300	294			87	887
C	28	320	1,071	1,866	1		419	3,705
Start	5	173	862	3,228		1	2,245	6,514
Stub		5	122	1,356			1,865	3,348
List	7	10	47	98	1		10	173
Category					2,890			2,890
Disambig				3	26			29
File					35			35
Portal					100			100
Project					23			23
Template		1			225			226
NA		8	42	144	678			872
Other				1	157			158
Assessed	73	712	2,476	7,072	4,136	1	4,636	19,106
Unassessed			1	12	1		416	430
Total	73	712	2,477	7,084	4,137	1	5,052	19,536
WikiWork factors (?)		ω = 70,391			Ω = 4.82

Peer Review for Proxemics

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

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

Discussion about external link to public domain personality test items

For those who might want to follow or comment, the discussion is at Talk:Personality test#International Personality Item Pool. 75.177.156.78 (talk) 00:00, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Big Mind Process

Could some editors, with access to academic journals, take a critical look at Big Mind Process#Clinical trial? I've been reading the "trial", and think it's rubbish, making bold statements based on ivalid use of tests and invalid comparisons. To my opinion, this "trial" is being used as an advertisement-tool, and I'd like to know how other, non-involved editors, think about this. See also Talk:Big Mind Process#Clinical trial. Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:41, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Good article nomination for "IQ classification"

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)

Allport's Scale Article Merge

Fellow editors, I have heavily edited and polished the short stub of an article about Antilocution, only to find conflicting information located on the article about Allport's Scale (in which antilocution is the first degree of measurement). Allport's Scale does not appear to be widely accepted, but there were a few accredited sources on Google Books that make references to Allport's work in the 1950's and 60's.

I know I should change the antilocution section on the Allport's Scale article, and I am wondering if this calls for a merge. I am a fairly new editor and I do not know how to go about moving all the citations and such. Could somebody please guide me in this endeavor, or better yet, merge Antilocution into the Allport's Scale page?

Thanks!

Retroscope (talk) 02:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Vital articles expansion nomination of psychology articles

Hi, everyone, I see a discussion of the project to expand vital articles coverage in psychology, and I thought I should draw the attention of WikiProject Psychology participants to that effort. The talk page of the expansion project provides sections for discussion proposed psychology articles to be added to the list of vital articles. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:11, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Psychopolitical Validity

Hello again, psychologists. Here's one more abandoned AfC submission that will soon be deleted as a stale draft. Is this a notable topic? It appears to have a number of references. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Not at all worth creating an article for this obscure topic. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay; it's gone now. —Anne Delong (talk) 01:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

One editor renaming tests

One editor, apparently uninformed, has begun renaming psychological tests without regard to what is accurate, even going so far as to move entire articles to the incorrectly titled test. For example see Revised autism diagnostic interview. I can fix the text in the articles, but would someone be kind enough to move the articles back to their correct titles? Thanks. 75.177.156.78 (talk) 15:05, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

PACT and ACT merger

There is a proposed merger for the stub Program of Assertive Community Treatment into the larger article Assertive Community Treatment. An IP anon is opposed to a redirect. I would like some comments / third opinion from WikiProject Psychology regarding the proposal at Talk:Assertive community treatment. NAMI describes the two terms saying, "There is no difference between the PACT (Program of Assertive Community Treatment) model and the ACT (Assertive Community Treatment) model. Not only does NAMI use PACT and ACT interchangeably, but PACT or ACT is also known by other names across the country."[1] The other point of view is that they are not the same, but different enough to require separate articles. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

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

(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)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Arousal Interpretation Theory or Schachter–Singer theory

Dear psychology experts: This old AfC submission will soon be deleted as a stale draft. Before it goes, is there anything there that should be migrated to Two-factor theory of emotion? —Anne Delong (talk) 13:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Nuked Psychopedagogy

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

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:London School of Differential Psychology

I have nominated Category:London School of Differential Psychology for discussion here. I'll be honest... I have no idea what to do with the category, but I do know it needs some attention. For your assistance, you will have my eternal gratitude—or, at least, my temporary appreciation. Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:54, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:WikiProject Autism articles and the article Introspection

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

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

Obesophobia

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

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

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

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

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

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 (talk • contribs) 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.