Talk:Self-categorization theory/GA1

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

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 18:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I will review this article. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Since this has popped up in my watchlist (I hadn't noticed that it had been GA nominated), I've tagged some example problems with the article and Cirt has invited me to contribute further to the review.

Although a lot of work has gone into it and it's based on an impressive set of references, I strongly think the article should not pass as GA until a number of accessibility and Plain English issues are addressed. At the moment the language is opaque and basically assumes that the reader already knows the topic. This is acceptable as a scholarly writing style but not for a general audience encyclopedia. Some examples of problems (I've tagged the first and last paragraphs as examples):


 * Is self-categorisation something that people do? Then why aren't people mentioned in the lead?


 * "rich normative content of team sports" - I know what each of the words means, but what does the phrase mean? What is an example of team sports having a normative content?


 * "Importantly, social categorization as envisaged..." "The important theoretical point here..." The encyclopedia shouldn't tell readers what's important: that's academic essay style rather than encyclopedic style.


 * "other researchers adopt the position..." There's lots of this style, and it's inadequate attribution. When we write about people advancing a theoretical position, challenging it, or proposing and alternative, we need their names, not just "some researchers".


 * "under conditions of social category salience and consequent accentuation," Conditions of what? Give an example so people can relate.


 * "perceiver readiness and category-stimulus fit. The latter being broken down into comparative fit and normative fit" - What do these four terms mean? They need to be explained in the article, not just wikilinked.


 * "an accentuation effect for categorized non-social stimuli" What are categorised non-social stimuli? "These are shoes, but these are gloves"?


 * I don't doubt that the above statements are all correct, it's just that they don't convey information to the uninformed reader.


 * The whole "Implications" section has this problem: it's all correct, but it's entirely written in technical terms that are at least in need of explanation as the topic of the article. So it could be very frustrating indeed for someone trying to use this article to understand self-categorization theory.

Take a look at WikiProject Psychology/How to write a psychology article for relevant style advice. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

In response to Andrew's query on my Talk page: firstly, I should say I'm really glad that someone with expertise is putting effort in to seriously improve this and related articles. Thanks to Andrew and anyone who's worked on this: now we have to think about how to get it signed off as a Good Article. I also note some of the prior debate on Andrew's talk page about finding a suitable reading level. I agree that not all of a Wikipedia article should be written for complete newcomers, and it's not like we have to avoid all technical terms, but the article should start in very basic English and get more complex as the terms are introduced. Even though this isn't the Simple English Wikipedia, it is for a global, nonspecialist audience so we still have a duty to be accessible and not make too many assumptions about the reader.

A lot of the readers of the article will indeed be undergraduates, but at the moment it's aimed at undergraduates who already took and aced the course. What about undergraduates who don't know any of these terms, and are only considering doing a social psychology module, or a psychology major? The article is fundamentally about things that people can identify with: thinking or saying "I'm Martin", in some contexts, "I'm British" in another and "I'm a Wikipedian" in another. But the language of the article doesn't connect to everyday experience in this way.

As regards "some researchers", I realise readers can follow the reference, but "some" is very vague and the text needs to make clear if "some researchers" means a significant faction of the profession or just two people. If the theoretical perspective under discussion comes from specific authors, then we should name them (and then we can refer back to it as "the Smith & Jones perspective," etc.) This is a way in which the article should actually be more like scholarly writing. See Confirmation bias for an example of this approach. It's a Featured Article now, but at the time it was reviewed for GA, there was a lot of criticism that it was opaque and technical, and the article changed for the better in response to that. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Martin. Again, thanks for giving some time for this. First up, I am happy to believe that the article in its current form might be a bit inaccessible to the likely audience. I was the author of a fair bit of it and I accept that I may have fallen into the trap of assuming that everyone is on the same page as me. If the accessibility gap is vast then I am happy to retract my good article nomination (if that is even possible). I don't want to waste anyone's (read Cirt’s) time if the conclusion is forgone.


 * I am happy to let the article ferment for a while before looking into GA status again. Other editors and passers-by will eventually leave comments and I and others will take those on board. Along those lines, over the next month or so I will try to follow up on your feedback. At this stage it all seems very reasonable. Just quickly though, I am a bit confused about your 6th point above. Explanations for perceiver readiness, normative fit, and comparative fit are in the article. In fact, there is section devoted to each of these. I added the wikilinks to make it clear that explanations for these likely foreign terms were available. You seem to have missed these explanations though so it seems that this has backfired massively. Cheers Andrew (talk) 09:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Query: Any updates on progress on this, either from Andrew or MartinPoulter ? &mdash; Cirt (talk) 03:21, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Happy to have this closed for now, but just to give Andrew the chance to do more some more work on it and in the expectation that it'll be nominated again. Andrew, my point about the technical terms is my fault for reading the article in the wrong order. I still think there is a valid issue in that paragraph with the density of technical language, and that it can be remedied by inserting more concrete examples. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 12:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, unfortunately for now, that sounds prudent. We'll wait to hear from Andrew before doing that. :) &mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:10, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi all. As stated I am happy to have this closed off and to try and slowly improve the accessibility of the article. It could take me a while to get around to it. Fingers crossed that other editors come along to help out and that it isn't just me. Martin, I keep you posted with my efforts in addressing some of the more specific concerns you have raised (probably over on this thread unless you suggest somewhere else). This will probably occur in the coming months. Cheers Andrew (talk) 01:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: Closed as unfortunately not GA at this time. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 02:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)