Talk:Personality judgment

Untitled

Hey Witmb11! Good article, I enjoyed it, particularly the subsection of effects of personality judgment on behavior. I didn't really see any grammatical errors or anything, but I have a few suggestions to improve the article (which can totally be ignored if you don't agree).

The perspectives on accuracy part was slightly confusing, and it might help if you list the perspectives clearly in the lead in paragraph, or list the perspectives as bullets or something.

You might want to add a few more wikilinks, as it'll make it easier if people don't know much about a concept or something, they can just click it.

in your references, try to link more of the articles so people can just click on them to get the pdf, or whatever format it's in, even if it only shows the the abstract. That was it'll be easier to find the citations.

Other than that I thought it was great! Made the reviewing process pretty easy. Good work (Go Dawgs)! Moonpe11 (talk) 14:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest tag

The article has been tagged as having a conflict of interest editor involved. The editor appears to be primarily writing with course objectives in mind, at the expense of and instead of with Wikipedia guidelines in mind. Until such a time that this article is not a requirement of coursework and until it becomes clear that peer review for the article as a class requirement will be done based on adherence to Wikipedia writing style requirements (medical referencing, lead style, summary style, language accessibility), the conflict of interest remains as the editors primary objectives are unlikely to involve Wikipedia. --LauraHale (talk) 20:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain how this topic falls into the "medical referencing" category? Whitmb11 (talk) 21:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A higher standard is expected for medical articles (see WP:MEDRS), and I'm assuming that LauraHale feels this article or the articles that your class are editing fall under that category. I'm not seeing anything resembling medical advice in your article though, which is good. I think that if you review the guideline and use references from peer-reviewed medical journals (and not one-off studies), you should be fine. Gobōnobo ⁺ ^c 00:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The COI tag was removed per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#COI_tag_usage_for_Wikipedia_articles_used_as_educational_assignments.Smallman12q (talk) 11:40, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article Comments

Hey, I thought your article was good overall. The information presented is clear and succinct. Couple things you might want to take a look at though. First, I would go back to your realism perspective under accuracy of personality judgement and reread the second sentence there. I understood it, but I had to read it a couple times so you might want to try and clarify it a little, maybe think about separating it into two sentences. Second, in your judge characteristics section, you refer to judges a lot, should it be judgers? I don't know, but I thought I should bring it up. It might work too if you used "someone" or "a person," although that can get messy at times too. Lastly, you might want to add a sentence or two to the "facial expressions corresponding to personality traits" bullet. Or better yet, see if you can find pictures of traits to use. All-in-all I think you did a nice job though. Croweml11 (talk) 21:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will likely be editing this article. Primarily due to the lack of the personality psychology information. The social standpoint is good. I will be adding information to the last two sections and adding a section or two for personality. Restructure. Etc. Thank you! BDHXVC (talk) 05:03, 17 February 2018 (UTC) BDHXVC (talk) 05:03, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Impact of recent student edits

This article has recently been edited by students as part of their course work for a university course. As part of the quality metrics for the education program, we would like to determine what level of burden is placed on Wikipedia's editors by student coursework.

If you are an editor of this article who spent time correcting edits to it made by the students, please tell us how much time you spent on cleaning up the article. Please note that we are asking you to estimate only the negative effects of the students' work. If the students added good material but you spent time formatting it or making it conform to the manual of style, or copyediting it, then the material added was still a net benefit, and the work you did improved it further. If on the other hand the students added material that had to be removed, or removed good material which you had to replace, please let us know how much time you had to spend making those corrections. This includes time you may have spent posting to the students' talk pages, or to Wikipedia noticeboards, or working with them on IRC, or any other time you spent which was required to fix problems created by the students' edits. Any work you did as a Wikipedia Ambassador for that student's class should not be counted.

Please rate the amount of time spent as follows:

0 -No unproductive work to clean up
1 - A few minutes of work needed
2 - Between a few minutes and half an hour of work needed
3 - Half an hour to an hour of work needed
4 - More than an hour of work needed

Please also add any comments you feel may be helpful. We welcome ratings from multiple editors on the same article. Add your input here. Thanks! -- LiAnna Davis (WMF) (talk) 21:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Intent to Add Sections

A colleague and I intend to add the following sections to the Accuracy section; History of Personality Judgement Accuracy Research, Assessing Accuracy, the Realistic Accuracy Model, and Moderators of Accuracy. We plan on incorporating the existing "Contributors to accurate personality judgement" section under the larger heading of Moderators of Accuracy. These edits are a part of APS’s Wikipedia Initiative. --ChloePed (talk) 18:29, 17 September 2018 (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 16:50, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]