Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Myers-Briggs Type Indicator/archive1

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator edit

This looks like a great, well-referenced article. It failed a previous nomination, but since I can't find the discussion, we can assume that all of the problems have since been fixed. Captain Jackson 07:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object I'm afraid:
- More references are needed. There are whole sections which don't have a single one (including About the indicator and The preferences).
- Historical development section starts off in past tense and then changes to the present tense (need to change to the past tense). It also needs to be clearer how Briggs was influenced by Jung and probably needs expanding (what's happened since 1956?).
- In the preferences section the Judging and Perceiving bullet points are confusing and contradictory.
- Descriptions of the function-attitudes too long, unreferenced and reads like it's been taken out of the manual.
- Criticisms and Skeptical view section largely unreferenced.

--G Rutter 09:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per above. Brisvegas 09:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Article is woefully lacking on the extensive scientific criticism of the MBTI. Jokestress 18:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I resorted some of the article, but there are a few points:

1. You use the term extroversion and extraversion alternatively; although both may be technically correct spelling-wise, to help the readers understand you should use "extroversion" throughout since that's the more common term (leaving in the sentence you have explaining that "extraversion' came first).

2. When citing in footnotes, you need to specify the page or pages of the volume; citing just the book is confusing.

Disagree to the point about extraversion vs. extroversion. Extraversion is the term more often used in association with MBTI and with the Jung typology, not extroversion. However, I still oppose the feature article as it needs peer review and more sources. --Shawn 17:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good start but, as indicated above, grammar and organization corrections are necessary and Peer Review would be a good place to start. Jtmichcock 19:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]