Talk:Identity (social science)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk 02:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality: Few quibbles: 1) "Some believe this separation between" - who? 2) is John C. Turner in lead the same person as the unlinked John Turner mentioned later? 3) what are category representative? 3) what's the difference between "social identity" and "social identity theory" (redirecting here)? If there is none, the lead should say something like social identity (also known as social identity theory). 4) what is "perceptual research" (second "what is" question - jargon warning) 5) quickly followed by perceptual accentuation effect (what is...) 6) what is social perception? 7) what is social category (some of those may be just linked... see below). 7) "he found that by merely assigning participants into groups can result in in-group favoritism and out-group discrimination" - grammar? unnecessary "by"? 8) "monetary amount" - wouldn't "monetary reward" be better English?
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 1) insufficient density of internal links; from the first section, the following terms should be interlinked: social psychology, collective phenomena, William James, interpersonal interactions, symbolic interaction, collectivist perspective, individualist approach (some of those may be piped, some may be red); the article is long enough that if something was linked in lead (ex. Henri Tajfel), it should be linked again in the body; I could go on to the second para ("justification, causal attribution, and social differentiation") but I hope it is clear what the problem here is 2) the article shows prejudice against red links; those should be added where needed. A good example is the The Group Mind book - it seems notable enough for somebody to write an article on it 3) in some cases, ilinks should be moved, for example, sociology is linked not on its first, but second appearance in text
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources: See below
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: As I wrote above, I find citation density unsatisfactory. Please improve it to one-per-sentence.
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects: }
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * Not really. There is scope to add more images, illustrating thinkers and concepts.
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: But please move File:Tajfel's Theory of Social Identity.png to Commons.
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall: I am worried that the creator of this article,, has stopped activity in late April. I'd like to hear him reply to the issues raised above, before the review, by me and in , for example. I've reviewed the first section, "Evolution of social identity theory", for now. I'll continue the review once it is confirmed there is an active editor (or editors) who are willing to respond to this review.
 * 2) Disclaimer: I am not a psychologist, but a sociologist. Input from a reviewer versed in psychology would be nice, but... we can wish upon a star :) I am also a non-native speaker of English, so while the prose sounds right to me, I cannot claim it is brilliant and always sounds right. I have not verified that all material corresponds to the references cited, some are behind pay-walls I have no access to, and I simply don't have several hours to dedicate to checking 44 references, including dozens of academic papers. Nothing in the article raised a red flag by looking dubious or unreliable, based on my current state of knowledge, to justify more detailed verification. Hence I am assuming good faith and proper referencing standards on the part of the author(s).
 * 3) Other comments: Please notify me on my talk page when responses are posted here; I'll return the same courtesy (my watchlist can get swamped).
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * Not really. There is scope to add more images, illustrating thinkers and concepts.
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: But please move File:Tajfel's Theory of Social Identity.png to Commons.
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall: I am worried that the creator of this article,, has stopped activity in late April. I'd like to hear him reply to the issues raised above, before the review, by me and in , for example. I've reviewed the first section, "Evolution of social identity theory", for now. I'll continue the review once it is confirmed there is an active editor (or editors) who are willing to respond to this review.
 * 2) Disclaimer: I am not a psychologist, but a sociologist. Input from a reviewer versed in psychology would be nice, but... we can wish upon a star :) I am also a non-native speaker of English, so while the prose sounds right to me, I cannot claim it is brilliant and always sounds right. I have not verified that all material corresponds to the references cited, some are behind pay-walls I have no access to, and I simply don't have several hours to dedicate to checking 44 references, including dozens of academic papers. Nothing in the article raised a red flag by looking dubious or unreliable, based on my current state of knowledge, to justify more detailed verification. Hence I am assuming good faith and proper referencing standards on the part of the author(s).
 * 3) Other comments: Please notify me on my talk page when responses are posted here; I'll return the same courtesy (my watchlist can get swamped).
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Disclaimer: I am not a psychologist, but a sociologist. Input from a reviewer versed in psychology would be nice, but... we can wish upon a star :) I am also a non-native speaker of English, so while the prose sounds right to me, I cannot claim it is brilliant and always sounds right. I have not verified that all material corresponds to the references cited, some are behind pay-walls I have no access to, and I simply don't have several hours to dedicate to checking 44 references, including dozens of academic papers. Nothing in the article raised a red flag by looking dubious or unreliable, based on my current state of knowledge, to justify more detailed verification. Hence I am assuming good faith and proper referencing standards on the part of the author(s).
 * 2) Other comments: Please notify me on my talk page when responses are posted here; I'll return the same courtesy (my watchlist can get swamped).
 * Pass or Fail:


 * A week has passed with no reply. I am failing this article. Please do not nominate articles for GA if there is no will to follow up and reply to reviewer comments. We have a backlog to deal with, and such nominations are not helping. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk 03:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)