Evolutionary psychology edit
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
Request for peer review of the Evolutionary Psychology (EP) page. There is currently disagreement regarding what are appropriate and inappropriate criticisms of the field to include on the main EP page, with strong opinions expressed on both sides. See the recent discussion / debate on the EP talk page [[1]] Thanks, Memills (talk) 05:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
RJHall comments:
- The article should either use spaced en-dashes or non-spaced em-dashes, and they should be used consistently. The first sentence uses spaced em-dashes; the second sentence of the overview uses three dashes; the quote by Tooby and Cosmides uses a non-spaced em-dash; the "Natural selection" section uses spaced dashes.
- "Other adaptations, according to EP..." As far as I can tell, these are the first concrete examples. Hence, the word "other" here seems improper. Perhaps "Examples of adaptations,"?
- In the second paragraph of the lead, the article discusses how EP views intraspecies conflict, but does not tie this into how this impacts evolution.
- Please wikilink bonobos, standard social science model and metatheoretical as the reader may be unfamiliar with this jargon.
- "designed by the process of natural selection" => the word "designed" here is perhaps not the best as a few readers might take it to imply a "designer". Perhaps "assembled through the process of natural selection" or some such.
- The jargon "agent-detection mechanisms" is unclear. Can this be linked or explained? I can take a guess but I'd prefer something definitive.
- There are a few too many paragraphs that begin with 'Evolutionary psychology', 'Evolutionary psychologists', EP or the like. This style can tend to make writing monotonous, so please try mixing it up a little.
- The writing was decent up until here: "EP uses Nikolaas Tinbergen's four categories...", which left me dangling a bit. I think that part could be improved upon.
- Aren't bullets #2 and #5 of the Cosmides/Tooby principles more or less the same? Perhaps the text could clarify how these differ?
- Much of the final sentence of the "Principles" section is redundant with much of the first sentence of the "General evolutionary theory" section.
- I understand the "General evolutionary theory" section is there as an introduction, but right now it just seems like an interlude. My sense is that the selection needs to tie in more tightly to the article topic. For example, sexual selection could focus on the psychology of mate selection criteria in humans.
- The "Foundations" section could do with an explanation. Why is the table there and what is it trying to show? I know it looks orderly formatted this way, but as a casual reader the table approach tended put me off.
- Likewise the bullets in Middle-level evolutionary theories are not quite appealing. I think they could just as easily be re-written in normal prose so there is better flow.
I hope these comments were somewhat helpful. I'll try to add some more later.—RJH (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
North8000 Note If I understand correctly from your submittal, I think that you are saying that you are having a content dispute? I'm not versed enough on the norms of PR to know if that can be handle here, but here or wherever, if you want input on a content dispute it would be good to clarify more exactly what the question is. North8000 (talk) 02:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)