|Coping (psychology) was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.|
|WikiProject Physiology||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Psychology||(Rated C-class, High-importance)|
Revision as of 15:56, 16 May 2007
The article on coping (psychology) discusses responses to stressors from a health psyhology perspective based on the theories of stress, appraisal, and coping proposed by Lazarus and Folkman. The focus is on cognitive-behavioral theories and the analysis of behavior. This article should be merged with "coping skills." 126.96.36.199 (talk) 20:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Authors and editors should structure this article based on references from the original works.
You can also mine references from these online articles:
- These need to be dated, sorted, and signed. Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 07:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
it is a bit unreasonable for me to believe that this article is as objective as possible. there is an immediate between and womanhood. as far as unreasonablity is concerned, i find the numbers to be equal. it is too patriarchal to be taken seriously. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 15:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC).
This article seriously needs to be cleaned up. There are references to "finding out information about the disease" with no previous mention about what that disease is. The second half seems to be taken from a self-help website, and is not about what coping is but about how to cope effectively. --184.108.40.206 (talk) 22:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
The last section is not information, but instead advice, I think. Regardless it should say, "Person X says, "fkljsdjlksfd"" as opposed to just giving their own personal ideas. Kateaclysmic (talk) 13:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Number of coping strategies?
The first bit says there are 3 main coping strategies: appraisal-focused, emotion-focused and problem-focused. It then goes on to say that there are 2 main coping strategies, emotion-focused and problem-focused. What happened to appraisal-focused? --Irrevenant [ talk ] 23:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
The article does identify the three main coping strategies well in the beginning, but it could more clearly define them with better organization. The gender differences piece was good to add, with recognizing specifics in each gender and the importance of that. Also, the bbiological basis of the hormones section was good to shed light on because it is a important factor in coping as well. Maybe there could be mmore content on that, or further links to information on it. Another area where perhaps more content would be good, is the maladaptive section. In the beginning of the article is states that maladaptive techniques hurt the coping process, but it does not elaborate too much else on the topic. Again, maybe just some external links with a tad bit more information would give the reader more knowledge about those maladaptive techniques. (AMJonesPT (talk) 02:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC))
The article is very extensive in defining the three types of coping strategies. However, it is a little wordy and lacks interest for the reader. I would suggest providing examples of when specific coping strategies are used, such as in grieving, diseases, stress from work, etc. Other than that, great job on expanding! There is a lot of good information on Karen Horney. (Kristinafreund (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC). Note: I (Lars Tummers) have added some info here, based on a systematic literature review we (scholars from the University of California, Berkeley and Erasmus University Rotterdam) have conducted. I hope you will find it useful. It is an application of the work of Karen Horney in public administration. It has been published in the top research journal in public administration and based on a 35 year systematic literature review. I post it here mainly so that the wider public can also have easy access to work from scholars. Hope it is useful.--LGTummers (talk) 13:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Coping (psychology)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
|1. Well written:|
|1a. the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct.||Much of the prose is fine, but there are sentence fragments, list formats, and many separate paragraphs made of one or two sentences, especially in the "Types" section. The prose abruptly changes from one topic to another without clear organization.|
|1b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.||Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section), the lead section should summarize all sections of the article, without introducing unique information that is not in the article body. This lede gives information not found elsewhere, and it does not summarize all sections.
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (embedded lists), lists should often be converted into prose, especially when those lists are by nature incomplete. This article often uses lists in ways not appropriate for a "Good Article."
Items in the "See also" list seem arbitrary.
|2. Verifiable with no original research:|
|2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.||Many of the references are fine, and this area is much-improved. But in some books, the page numbers are listed, and in other, they are omitted. When giving a broad and probably-disputed assertion like "About 400 to 600 coping strategies have been identified", we need a more specific source than a textbook, when don't know where in the book to look. Also, many references are duplicates and should be combined.|
|2b. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines.||There are assertions that are not cited, especially in the "Negative techniques" and "Hormones" sections. These include disputable claims like "This is the most common strategy."
Some of the material seems to be a close paraphrase of the source material, to a degree that may be a copyright infringement (e.g. in the Karen Horney section).
|2c. it contains no original research.||I don't detect any.|
|3. Broad in its coverage:|
|3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.||It is difficult for me to tell, given the sourcing, whether all important aspects are covered or not.|
|3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).||This does not seem to be a problem.|
|4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.||It does not seem to have any obvious neutrality problems. But I am unable to tell, given the sourcing, whether some theories are given undue weight and some theories neglected.|
|5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.||That's fine.|
|6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:|
|6a. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content.||No images.|
|6b. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.||It should be possible to provide relevant images. The text refers to images that are not in the article itself.|
|7. Overall assessment.||This does not pass "Good Article" standards at this time.|
In summary, this is a much-improved article with many positive aspects. It is not currently up to "Good Article" standard, but please don't let that discourage you from continuing to work on this or other articles. (Any improvement is appreciated!) I would recommend improving the article based on the comments here, and then submitting it to Wikipedia:Peer review. You may also want to read other psychology-related articles that have attained "Good Article" status, such as Attachment disorder, Stereotype threat, or Maternal deprivation. – Quadell (talk) 17:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- IMO it was a naive GA nomination. Myself and 2 other editors made big improvements recently from the previous disaster where it was split into 3 separate articles with major overlap. But there is still obviously quite a way to go.--Penbat (talk) 18:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
17 percent of what
By footnote 20, the articles states that religion is one of the most popular coping strategies, used by 17 percent of people, but it is highly unclear what this means. Does this mean out of a general survey 17 percent use religion as a coping mechanism or 17 percent of people who describe using any coping mechanism use it, or 17 percent of the anxious and depressed, or what? ~~Acab
I like this explanation! Without this, I would have believed that the main page definition were not else that the silly psychologists game of creating a slang and corrupting language. "In psychology, coping is expending conscious effort to solve personal and interpersonal problems, and seeking to master, minimize or tolerate stress or conflict": in other words: "striving to live properly". "Coping" I thought deriving by "copy", even if it should be "copying", but nowadays people are clever in damaging their motherlanguage, and specially English (it's not mine). --220.127.116.11 (talk) 10:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
This article gives Denial as a coping strategy, while other wiki articles say Denial is a defense mechanism. This articles says that defense mechanisms are generally excluded from coping mechanisms. Is there a contradiction here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kathon (talk • contribs) 21:15, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Accuracy in final paragraph
The final paragraph 'Physiological basis' states '...activates the sympathetic nervous system in the form of increased focus levels, adrenaline, and epinephrine.' I don't know much about psychology or biochemistry, but I know that adrenaline and epinephrine are the same thing and it looks suspiciously as though whoever wrote this paragraph was not an expert either. Probably the whole paragraph needs expert attention. NLG900 (talk) 13:14, 19 March 2016 (UTC)