User talk:DeanMoir
| This user is a student editor in Eureka_College/PSY_101_General_Psychology_(Spring_2019) . |
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, DeanMoir, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.
I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.
Handouts
|
|---|
Additional Resources
|
|
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:51, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Review/Suggestions for Article
[edit]I think the biggest area for improvement of the article is in the tone. It is written now in opinionated type of tone instead of a encyclopedic tone that is purely informative. This is apparent in the Type A & B sections. The type a provides what it is and then mentions the negatives that come with it and how they are angry and overly competitive. Then in type B is seems more positive mentioning how they are always more accepting than type A. Making it purely informal would do a lot of good for the article. Another improvement possibility that I saw was with intro/history section. These were pretty brief and i thought they could be expanded upon to further increase overall background knowledge of the topic. The intro also seemed a little out of place. Talking about how type a develops cardiovascular disease more often did not seem like the proper information for an introduction. The length of the sections also is disproportionate to the importance of the article. Type A & B sections are two of the smaller sections even though that is the background of the article. Criticism and other studies are the largest sections even though the article is about Type A & B personalities. I would expand upon the types to create a deeper understanding and provide balance to the article. Lastly, there are places that citations could be added to help increase credibility. For example in the second paragraph of the type B section, there is not one citation even though it is talking about specific details of the personality.
Mpsmith15 (talk) 22:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
This article is concerning because it make It seem that these types of personalities are set and stone. A person doesn't have to fall under one of these categories, in fact their personality can be made up of all three things; type A, type B, and in between. I feel like there are just a bunch of quotes throughout it and it gives information that may not even be accurate due to all the controversy over this topic. You could go through and see if the information is correct especially under the "study" heading and maybe try not to quote as much; paraphrase more.Abbyswope1 (talk) 23:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)Abby