Talk:Macrosociology

The stylistics
At the invitation of The Prokonsul, I had a look here. I see issues: In general, this is the second best effort (structurally) in your project I've seen; Technophobia positively excels. It's close to WP norms & seems to cover the subject; it's sourced; it links to related content. I find the language a bit abstruse, but that's a judgment for somebody who knows far more sociology than me. TREKphiler  hit me ♠  19:28 & 19:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) with the placement of the inline citations (no, I won't explain)
 * 2) with structuring (no, I won't explain that, either)
 * 3) with lack of links out, which would put it on the Dead-end or Orphaned pages, & earn a deadend &/or orphaned tag. Test it at "What links here". (I confess, I don't know the criteria for "deadend", 'cause i've seen stubs tagged that would be nothing but linkfarms if more were added.) (no, I won't explain that, either)
 * 4) with sparsity of content (but it's a stub, that's to be expected)

Additional review avenue
You may want to consider Peer review to attract more reviewers.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Automated review
You may find the below suggestions useful.Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question. You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks,
 * The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.[?]
 * The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.[?]
 * Consider adding more links to the article; per Manual of Style (links) and Build the web, create links to relevant articles.[?]
 * This article has no or few images. Please see if there are any free use images that fall under the Image use policy and fit under one of the Image copyright tags that can be uploaded. To upload images on Wikipedia, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload.[?]
 * If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
 * You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. [?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
 * Per Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading  ==Magellan's journey== , use  ==Journey== .[?]
 * Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Guide to layout.[?]
 * There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
 * it has been
 * might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
 * Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

End of assignment: summary
I want to thank all editors who have contributed to this article, either by editing it or by reviewing it and offering help on this talk page. While the article has fallen short of the Good Article criteria, it has been obviously significantly improved, moving from stub/start class to solid C or even B class. Compare: before, after, diffs.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Underrepresented
This article lacks a lot of information, all the sections should have more in depth information. There should be further explanation of the sociologists that have contributed to Macrosociology. Also, there should be more citations that show where you got the content. Lastly, there are some sentences that need more clarification. Stoepp19 (talk) 15:53, 2 February 2017 (UTC)