Talk:CliftonStrengths

Requested move 21 November 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: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Bensci54 (talk) 17:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Gallup Test → CliftonStrengths – I'm posting this request as part of my work for Beutler Ink on behalf of Gallup, Inc. The current name is inaccurate, the assessment is called CliftonStrengths, and prior to that it was called StrengthsFinder. I think moving the article to "CliftonStrengths", which is already redirected to this article, will be more accurate and clear. BINK Robin (talk) 16:55, 21 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I think the move is a good idea. Ludicrous (talk) 20:08, 27 November 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.

Part 1: Lead
Hello, I'm posting here as part of my work for Beutler Ink on behalf of Gallup, Inc. Now that this article has been moved, I'd like to suggest some improvements to it. The current article primarily focuses on the contents of the test and results, and I think it can be improved by making changes to focus on the history of the test and its development.

First, I suggest replacing the first two paragraphs with the following:
 * CliftonStrengths (also known as StrengthsFinder) is an assessment developed by Don Clifton while he was chairman of Gallup, Inc. The company launched the test in 2001. Test takers are presented with paired statements and select the option they identify with best, then receive a report outlining the five strength areas they scored highest in, along with information on how to apply those strengths.
 * Reason: This version is cleaner and includes brief summaries of the test's development and original release, and the test itself. The current version also has some unsourced content, which this resolves.

I am open to editor feedback and suggestions. Because of my conflict of interest, I will not make any direct changes to the article. Let me know what you think. Cheers! BINK Robin (talk) 23:37, 5 December 2023 (UTC)


 * One issue I can see from replacing the first two paragraphs would be that 5 references would be removed and only 1 more added, meaning the article as a whole would only have 3 references, could the current sources in the article be retained or do they not fit/are incorrect? Lewcm Talk to me! 23:49, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That is a great question. You can see my overall planned changes here. I do think some of the sources could be retained, if you think that is helpful. They generally verify the same information, so I didn't include them in case it came off as over citing. Curious to hear your thoughts! Cheers, BINK Robin (talk) 23:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ @BINK Robin If you think that some of the existing sources (you can go back to the old version here to see them if you wish) are reliable and could fit in with your request then I'd retain them personally, however if they do just confirm the same information there's not much point keeping them all. There's some more info on over citing at WP:OVERCITE if you have't already seen that page. Because the paragraph itself isn't tiny you could include more than one if the existing sources would work with it.
 * Overall, I think the actual text content of the request plus your draft article is good, so I've completed the request :) Thanks, Lewcm Talk to me! 00:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Many thanks! I will take another look at adding some of those sources back in to my draft. Since there's not a ton more content to work through, would you be willing to review the rest of the draft once I've finished adding back any relevant sources? Cheers! BINK Robin (talk) 00:22, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @BINK Robin No problem! Yes I’d be happy to review the rest, it’s quite late where I am right now so I might not be able to get to it for a few hours but I’ll make sure to look at it as soon as I’m available :) Lewcm Talk to me! 00:28, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, I am also about done for the evening, so I'll ping you once it's ready for you to take a look. Thanks again! BINK Robin (talk) 00:30, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @BINK Robin No problem :) Thanks, Lewcm Talk to me! 00:32, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I took another look at the sources I took out in my revised lead and here's my thinking.
 * The Wall Street Journal article has the most details, and that one I do have in my draft already to verify and timestamp use of the test by companies on the Fortune 500 list.
 * Now, discover your strengths is primary, so unless you think it's appropriate to include I've left it out. But perhaps I should put books like that in Further reading?
 * The Bloomberg Businessweek article is really about Gallup, Inc., I didn't see any content that made sense for this article.
 * And the Fast Company article, similarly is about Gallup poll results, not specifically CliftonStrengths.
 * So I think sourcing in the draft is in a good spot for right now, and perhaps in the future the article could be expanded somewhat. I'm curious to hear your thoughts, and whether you think it's worth including the book Now, discover your strengths in some way. Cheers! BINK Robin (talk) 19:40, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @BINK Robin, I've had a quick look over the last 2 articles as well and agree that since only one of them even mentions CliftonStrengths I'd leave them out. I think Now, discover your strengths being placed in further reading is a good idea, I'd be happy to put it in there now if you'd like, or you can submit it in your next request. The WSJ article looks like it's in a good place in the draft too :) Lewcm Talk to me! 19:51, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If you're fine with adding it, would you like to do that and move over the rest of the draft content? Otherwise, I don't mind posting a second edit request here to replace the rest of the article with my draft. Cheers! BINK Robin (talk) 20:00, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @BINK Robin I'm happy to move it over, I'll get that sorted now Lewcm Talk to me! 20:27, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @BINK Robin I've copied your draft over, could you please check it all looks ok :) Lewcm Talk to me! 20:32, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks great! Thanks so much for the assistance. If the topic interests you, I'll be posting requests over on Talk:Gallup, Inc., as well. Cheers! BINK Robin (talk) 21:18, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @BINK Robin No worries and I’ll be sure to keep an eye out, feel free to ping me if you need anything else :) Lewcm Talk to me! 22:00, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Lacks criticism and non-affiliated sources
This article about a commercial product draws mainly from Gallup affiliated sources and uncritical journalists from the business press. It seems un-encyclopedic and so I'm adding the Advert tag. The high cost of this product may be one of the reasons it hasn't received serious study by academics. A survey article "Strength Use in the Workplace: A Literature Review" by Miglianico et al. suggest this might indeed be a fine product, but "Strengths, strengths overused, and lopsided leadership" by Kaiser and Overfield  raises issues about the scope and validity as well as the risks of addressing only individual aspects. "Strengths So White: Interrogating StrengthsQuest Education Through a Critical Whiteness Lens" by Tapia-Fuselier and Irwin raises questions about the majoritarian context that frames this work. This article has virtually no links to other wikipedia content, itself a bad sign, but overall the state of the wikipedia concerning the "self-help" industry is not in great shape. At a minimum, linkage to the field of Positive psychology on which this product rests seems important and might provide some hints of NPOV balance. PaigePhault (talk) 11:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC)