Talk:Self-discrepancy theory

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 May 2019 and 5 August 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mdsiskind.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

General remarks
If this topic is as important as it seems to be, it really needs to be thoroughly re-written. The presentation is abstract in the extreme, and there's no reason this can't be explored in a more concrete and accessible way. Chairease (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC).

Evaluation
I believe this is a good article. It is very easy to understand since the beginning. All facts are referenced with appropriate and reliable sources. It’s written in a neutral way, without the unnecessary use of bias. It is also well organized, it includes headings, most of the sections are relatively the same size, and they all contain helpful information that contributes to the main idea exposed on the article. --2602:306:30AB:9980:5D14:87FD:9127:B164 (talk) 04:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Evaluation
Overall this article is relatively well written. It is very clear, unbiased, and the information is detailed without including too much. There are a few complications in the article. The article needs to include a lot of citations. The beginning begins very well with the references, but after the "Domains of the self" section, the number of citations drop dramatically. Also, on procrastination, it mentions that studies have been made but includes no references to support this claim. Other than that, it is a good quality article. -T15311327 (talk) 20:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Quality of the citations and reliability of the information
The article needs to improve citations. For example, the link to references 2, 3,4 and 5 were in incorrect locations. The in-text citations should not include the page of the source for this format. Sections such as "Standpoints of the self" and "Application and use" require extensive review of citations. Finally, all sources were out of date with none of them with less than ten years of publication.Vsusy89 (talk) 20:48, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Evaluation of Article
In the second paragraph of the article, Higgins is referenced in-text without any introduction of the individual (including his or her credentials). Additionally, one of Higgins’s works is referenced a total of 27 times; of those 27 citations, all of them come from a 20-page section of the source. Two other Higgins works are also referenced in the article. Regardless of the credibility of the author (which is extremely high in this case given that Mr. Higgins developed Self-Discrepancy Theory), a more diverse range of sources that support Higgins’s work would be beneficial to the article, serving as a stronger support for Higgins’s experience in the field. Among other recommended changes in the article are adding more detailed and relevant content to the “Domains of the Self” and “Standpoints of the Self” sections, and diversifying the sources (as mentioned in the previous paragraph) cited in the “Self-Guide” section. In the “Another Domain of Self” section, a comma needs to be added after “1999.” The last sentence of the section needs to be cited or removed entirely. The topic discussed in the final sentence of the “Accessibility” section needs to be expanded upon. CulJ (talk) 00:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Evaluation
This article is overall well written. However, more sources should be utilized. Most of the information provided was pulled from one source. Additionally, there is no citation for the information provided in the depression section of the article. If this is an original thought one must keep in mind that wikipedia does not allow original thoughts. Also it seems as if in the emotions section there are direct quotations used which is considered to be plagiarism. Melindaelena (talk) 07:01, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Underrepresented subtopics
The basic domains need more development, more information, and references. They are underrepresented. In my opinion, the article needs more facts and reliable reference to reinforce the subtopics such as another domain of self and standpoints of the self. Ivanubia (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Fundamentals of Speech 1017 critique
This article lacks proper structure. There are too many paragraphs that do not seem to connect to each other in a way that is relevant. The article does not explain clearly what the Self-discrepancy theory is in way for the general audience would understand. Many of the source citations are outdated. There needs to be use of sources from recent years. Overall, the article is very confusing because of the structure that could be fixed. GAMALIELDORCIN (talk) 15:41, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

PBSC SPC1017 Article Critique
The first paragraph of the article doesn't properly explain the meaning behind the self-discrepancy theory. It really isn't helping me with trying to remember what the theory means. With the sources or references, it seems like the writers of the article relied too much on one source, the fourth one to be specific. It seems that some of the topics/subheadings in the article lack information. There aren't any recent references. The article could use new information with a little more detail and a different structure. Jennifersandoval18 (talk) 23:54, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

PBSC SPC1017 Article Evaluation
The introduction does not really explain what self-discrepancy theory is. Instead, the word "self-guides" is used as an attempt to explain its meaning but it actually makes it harder to understand for the general audience, because the article does not explain what "self-guides" means. Additionally, the article seems to jump from one point to another in a drastic way, without using any connections to relate each phrase. Also, the sources the author uses to base his article have more than 10 years since they were published. The author bases the article mostly on Higgins' theory (reference number 4) abusing this resource.DanielGomRe (talk) 03:08, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

SPC1017 Article Critique
The first paragraph, the introductory, doesn't thoroughly define or explain what the self-discrepancy theory means. I had to read it multiple times to understand only part of it. It is best to re-write the introductory to further elaborate the meaning of self-discrepancy theory while still addressing it to a general audience, since with the original wording, some people might find it too complex to fully understand. I also found 4-5 outdated sources, newer ones will be needed in order to make this article more reliable.Llulissa Molina (talk) 13:00, 5 September 2018 (UTC)Llulissa Molina

Evaluation
First, the lead section is a bit long. It should be a summary since sometimes that's all one reads. Not only length is a problem but it is also very detailed. Some of those details can be transitioned into a body paragraph in the article. Not only does the lead section need to be shortened, but self-discrepancy is not explained, yet other not so much important topics are. As far as citations, the "Depression" paragraph does not include any citations at all, more than half of the citations are over 10 years old and the author based the article mostly on one source(4).

Other than those slight changes that needs to be made, the article is well written, unbiased, detailed and very organized(headings etc.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DominiqueCDooley (talk • contribs) 04:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Can be improved
This article can be improved in several ways. The introductory section is too long and detailed. It should be only about two paragraphs and more of a summary/overview of the topic. Another issue with the article is that although there are many sources listed, the article does not use them evenly and relies more heavily on certain sources. This can cause the article to not be as accurate and even biased since a lot of its information is coming from very few sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amanda4968 (talk • contribs) 03:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Evaluation
After reading and looking through the article I realized a few things I considered significant issues. Firstly, this article itself is about explaining and discussing the self-discrepancy theory, but I didn't consider the explaination in the introduction to be very concise or thorough. In fact, the introduction itself was quite lengthy. I think it should be shorter and more relevant to the topic so readers can quickly read and understand the topic. I also realized that some sources were heavily used throughout the article. I think there should be a larger variety in the number of sources that are used throughout the article. This article repeatedly used the same few sources over and over again. YulissaAD99 (talk) 02:26, 20 January 2019 (UTC)