Talk:Hierarchical structure of the Big Five

Merging this page with Big Five personality traits

It has been suggested that this page should be merged with Big Five personality traits. I can see the logic behind this. The work on this page is obviously an extension of that work. This page goes into sufficient depth on its topic (hierarchical structure) that I don't think it's material should be fully merged into that, much broader topic. A better solution to my mind would be to add a brief section to the Big Five providing a cursory overview of this material and a link to this fuller treatment. Armsbf11 (talk) 19:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm planning to remove the suggestion that this page be merged with Big Five personality traits and culture as these are not the "same topic" by any stretch, and it would be inappropriate to merge the two.Armsbf11 (talk) 20:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide continued discussion and indicate Support / Oppose positions at Talk:Big Five personality traits.
SBaker43 (talk) 19:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adding introductory context

Does anyone have any suggestions for improving the introduction to this article to add context for those unfamiliar with the topic? Armsbf11 (talk) 23:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Couple thoughts dude, first, careful with your use of "these" in the second paragraph of your opening. I followed you, but you almost lost me there in your third sentence: "As the sub-level of a hierarchy, these traits can be said to be made up of these aspects or facets." Might be just me, but reread it at least. With regard to expanding your introduction, I would just look to your article itself. From what I understand the opener should touch on everything in your article, so I would just go through and add a sentence or two for each of the headings. Croweml11 (talk) 22:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So I think your article is really good, but it is a little bit over the head of the average wiki user. I think that people who are somewhat versed in psychology (senior undergrad majors, at least), will have no problems reading it, but you use jargon like "top-down organization" and stuff like that that may not be clear to people who aren't as familiar with those terms/constructs/ideas. I think your intro hook should be in the simplest terms possible--I was a little confused as to what this was by just reading the intro, and I knew what you were writing about. I know that when I read wikipedia articles, I rarely move past the intro, so you really need to get your basic explanation out there as quickly and simply as possible. Other than simplifying things, I think you're pretty solid. I think that simplifying it will also get rid of your tag. Abj89 (talk) 03:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of wholescale deleting most of the article, could the material instead be moved to out of the lead? Allens (talk | contribs) 04:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest tag

This article has been tagged with Conflict of Interest. The article was newly created for a class, has multiple issues that were not addressed in the T:TDYK process, and is going to be assessed for peer review against grading standards that are hidden and not included on this talk page. These grading standards may be in conflict with Wikipedia guidelines for writing medical articles. Please do not remove this tag until such a time that the course objectives have been made clear and demonstrate the course objectives align with Wikipedia policies OR the article is no longer part of compulsory editing on the part of a class. --LauraHale (talk) 01:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to be removing the COI tag per the consensus at the Dimensional models of personality disorders page and the related ANI discussion. Gobōnobo ⁺ ^c 06:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

unresolved issues about the "Big Five"

Please read the concerns expressed on Talk:Big Five personality traits. Please clarify these issues before merging is considered. MathewTownsend (talk) 16:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

also, this article, if it is a psychology article, should follow WP:MEDRS. This means no original research and no reliance on primary sources. A specific research report is a primary source. Review articles are secondary and appropriate sources. Please see these comments from the Talk:Big Five personality traits regarding sources that apply to this article also.[1] MathewTownsend (talk) 16:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, according to the Wikiproject Psychology page [2] WP:MEDRS "may be helpful" as a guide but it is not a definite requirement that must be followed. Furthermore, although secondary sources are preferred, primary sources are not forbidden. The article I have just linked to actually says that "Peer-reviewed research, including papers and monographs" may be used for psychology articles. No original research applies to all WP articles anyway, so I don't see the need to particularly emphasise it here unless you can cite a specific instance where OR has occurred.--Smcg8374 (talk) 10:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Wake Forest University supported by WikiProject Psychology and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]