Talk:Personality psychology/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Muboshgu (talk · contribs) 06:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Prose overall is pretty good. Regarding MOS, see WP:WTW. I see the use of the word "pioneering" in the lead, the word "seminal" in the body, and that's only from the first cursory skimming of the article. The "See also" section repeats some of the pages linked in the text. Those links should not be repeated per WP:SEEALSO. Also, the lead is supposed to summarize the article, but that bit on Allport's description of nomothetic vs. idiographic is not mentioned in the body at all.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   There are references, but not enough inline citations. There are HUGE amounts of text that require citations. Also, the citation style needs to be uniform. "Allport (1937)" is not an appropriate way to cite in this article, given the other inline citations.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Most major aspects are addressed. I did find the talk on psychosexual development to be lacking. There isn't even a wikilink to it. However, at points it seems to ramble and lose focus. For instance, why start talking about personality tests in the "Social cognitive" section when there is a later section on personality tests? Then, it goes into Mischel's work immediately after that, and there's no flow. The bit on Personal Construct Psychotherapy also seems to have been shoehorned in there. Per WP:TERSE, that should be trimmed down to a brief paragraph, and anyone looking for more detail on it can follow a wikilink there. Also, I don't know what to make of that "Personality and inner experience" section. If it requires expansion, why are you nominating for GA? As of now, it gives undue weight to one researcher's study. Also, the section on personality tests could use more description. Which of the tests are objective and which are projective?

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   I can't give this a checkmark due to issues in #2 and #3. Based on my personal knowledge of the subject, I don't see any major problems here, but there are some places where certain studies/individuals get undue weight.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   It's not required that you add more, but I feel an article of this length should have more than one image, and higher up in the article. Check here to see if there's anything else of use. If there's not, don't worry about it.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I think there is potentially a good article in here, although I can't pass it in its current shape. The examination of the subject is comprehensive (or comprehensive enough) and written in the appropriate tone. However, there is work to be done before I can pass it. The prose needs to be checked for words to watch, the "Personality and inner experience" section needs to be expanded and integrated meaningfully or removed, and inline citations are needed all over. I'll put this on hold and give you a week to get this to GA standards.

I am going to fail this article now, as an editor has produced evidence at Talk:Personality_psychology#Philosophical_assumptions that suggests some serious plagiarism on this page. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)