Template:Did you know nominations/Personality judgment
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: rejected by Rcsprinter (message) 15:58, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Personality judgment edit
- ... that people use a variety of social and cultural cues when making a personality judgment?
- Comment: Article moved to main space on April 6, 2012.
Created/expanded by Whitmb11 (talk). Self nom at 19:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Article is new enough and long enough. Hook is properly formatted.
Article has uncited facts. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section is not followed and this makes the article hard to understand. The sections happen with out understanding what a personality judgement even is before we head into Accuracy of personality judgment. And it gets even more confusing because without even knowing what a personality judgement is, we have the accuracy of that, and the Perspectives on accuracy of something NOT explained in the article. This is a major WP:NPOV violation. It needs to be fixed before this review goes any further. --LauraHale (talk)
Fix uncited material. Fix major point of view problems resulting from article organisation. --LauraHale (talk) 04:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for your review of this article. I have addressed your concerns- all facts now have citations, and I have added an introductory section to clarify the meaning of personality judgment. After adding the introductory section, it appears to me as though the lead section follows Wikipedia standards- please let me know if that is a misguided interpretation.Please let me know if there are any other issues I should resolve for the DYK process. I am new to Wikipedia, and I greatly appreciate any feedback you are willing to give me. Whitmb11 (talk) 22:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- "Current research on the accuracy of personality judgments varies based on three major perspectives on the basis of accurate personality judgment " <-- Current means 1993? This one I might be inclined to give the tick to if that is addressed if some one else will provide a second opinion where they agree it meets all the criteria. --LauraHale (talk) 22:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for your feedback! I removed the word current from that sentence- I see how that could have given a false impression of how research is currently being conducted on this topic.
- "Current research on the accuracy of personality judgments varies based on three major perspectives on the basis of accurate personality judgment " <-- Current means 1993? This one I might be inclined to give the tick to if that is addressed if some one else will provide a second opinion where they agree it meets all the criteria. --LauraHale (talk) 22:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
1993 means the article is using sources that are nearly 20 years old. Generally ten years old is the limit, unless you're writing about Renaissance painting or something. The article uses a 1995 source to support what "Current theories concerning personality judgment" focus on. In fact, this 1995 article is cited six times, more than any other source. I'll have to check through the article. MathewTownsend (talk) 01:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Not addressed within a reasonable timeframe. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
