Talk:Entitativity

Merging with entity

Entitativity is an important concept in social psychology, and I think it deserves its own article. I will see what I can do about expanding it. Rasputinous (talk) 13:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Requested move 1 June 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 02:39, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

---

Entitativity → Entitativity (Social Psychology) – "Entitativity" as a word, on first glance, seems to be a standard nominalization of the most general sense of the word entitative, which implies the page is about the ability of a concept to be considered an entity, and not specifically only the social psychological concept (as the article is now). And, due to the current stub state of the article, upon first viewing this was not immediately clear.

I've added a hatnote to clarify a bit, but think that this article should also have the clarifier "(Social Psychology)" to provide "pre-visit clarification" about what the article is about. Perhaps also, after this is done, a disambiguation hatnote pointing directly to Entity (disambiguation) would be beneficial. After reading WP:DAB, it doesn't seem to state clearly if a morphologically derived word should have clarifiers separating it from its root word, when no other articles with the exact derived word's title exist, but in this case I think it makes sense, as this article is linked from that disambiguation page, and the concepts are highly related but distinct. Brubsby (talk) 21:41, 1 June 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (please mention me on reply) 22:02, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. If it's the only "Entitativity" article, best to leave it alone. I don't think the argument holds. Compare Intentionality. Srnec (talk) 02:08, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Srnec, in the absence of another potential primary topic. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:03, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wiki Education assignment: Psychology 220A

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 September 2024 and 13 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Andrea Low (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Andrea Low (talk) 17:43, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi! I'm Andrea and I will be working on revising this page over the next few weeks. Looking forward to updating this page and working on improving it with everyone who is interested in this page as well! Andrea Low (talk) 19:07, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that entitativity is why some groups feel more “groupy” than others?

• Source: Research shows that people consistently distinguish between different types of groups based on perceived entitativity. Intimacy groups, such as family and friends, are generally considered the most entitative. Task groups, like committees, come next, followed by social categories (e.g., gender, race). Finally, loose associations—such as people who like classical music or those waiting in line at the bank—are seen as the least entitative.

• Reviewed:

Created by Andrea Low (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Andrea Low (talk) 08:54, 20 November 2024 (UTC).

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Entitativity/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Andrea Low (talk · contribs) 08:57, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: It is a wonderful world (talk · contribs) 11:34, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Andrea Low, you have done a really great job of expanding this article from the disorganized stub it was. I'll review over the next few days. It is a wonderful world (talk) 11:34, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @It is a wonderful world! Thank you for taking on the task of reviewing and for your very helpful feedback. I'll work on the comments and look forward to hearing more from you! Andrea Low (talk) 18:21, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Sources clock

I will start this review by working through the sourcing, because the biggest problem with this article is that it violates GA criterion 2b:

reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)

Since several sentences and even paragraphs are not cited, the reader will be unable to verify that the text is not just pure conjecture. To fix this, all content that could reasonably be challenged should be cited no later than the end of the paragraph, but ideally at the end of each sentence.

Although the criteria wording "could reasonably be challenged" is open for interpretation, the established norm for GA articles is that this includes anything which is not as obvious as "the sky is blue". Since this is a scientific article, the verifiability is paramount. It is a wonderful world (talk) 13:21, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Health/formatting clock

At the bottom of the review I added a suggestion that would significantly improve the formatting of the sources, but it is not required for GA. It is a wonderful world (talk) 13:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Here are some formatting improvements which are required for GA:

The "References" section is entirely redundant as it currently only repeats the information in the "Citations" section. It is a wonderful world (talk) 13:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed! This was a holdover from before I started edits, but I've removed this section now Andrea Low (talk) 18:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I will ahead and improved the metadata on the citations, which mostly consisted of:

• Linking publishers and journals
• Adding access information
• Adding databases
• Adding URLs for the books

It is a wonderful world (talk) 13:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Reliability clock

Although this article generally lacks references as mentioned above, the quality of the sources it does have is extremely good. It is a wonderful world (talk) 13:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

[3, 6, 7, 9, 17, 19, 20, 25, 27, 31, 45, 50, 52, 54, 55]: Books from reliable publishers such as Wiley-Blackwell, Sage Publishing and Oxford University Press. It is a wonderful world (talk) 13:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

My only concern was [56], which has not been published and therefore has probably not undergone traditional peer review, but Google Scholar shows it has been cited by several papers from reliable journals. It is a wonderful world (talk) 13:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

The rest of the sources are all from reliable peer reviewed journals. It is a wonderful world (talk) 13:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I will take another look at the added sources once the article meets criterion 2b, and if there are no issues I will pass on reliability. It is a wonderful world (talk) 13:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Spot check clock

I will do the spot check after the additional sources have been added. It is a wonderful world (talk) 13:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Copyvio clock

Earwig's copyvio detector finds no copyright violations or too close paraphrasing which is a really good sign. I will check for any other violations on the source spot check. It is a wonderful world (talk) 13:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Media clock

Suggestions

The following points are not needed for GA promotion, but can be used to improve the article further or are tips for improving your writing.

References [1-18] are used multiple times, with page ranges rather than specific page numbers. This is not a problem for meeting the GA criteria, but it is a massive inconvenience for the reader who wants to verify the information, as it means they much check the entire page range to verify the content.

A better solution would be to have each citation pointing to an individual page, or narrow page range which makes it easier for the reader. Wikimedia is currently working on a way to make this very easy to do in the visual editor, but for now, the established workaround is to use Template:sfn, for example see the featured article on Cleopatra.

It's a little finicky learning how to do this for the first time, but it significantly improves the verifiability of the article. It is a wonderful world (talk) 13:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Dropping in on this review to suggest Template:Reference page as an alternative. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 21:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

This is really helpful, thank you! Andrea Low (talk) 22:55, 20 November 2024 (UTC)