Talk:Symbolic self-completion theory

OCCalagrimas
The topic is really interesting, however the topic was very difficult to understand. The way the sections were blocked off made it easier to understand however the basic definition of self-completion theory is very difficult to comprehend. It would be great if it was reworded or rephrased so regular users can understand. It would also if you linked certain concepts to philosophical, sociological and psychological concepts so that wiki users can click on those links to further understand those concepts and subsequently understand self-completion theory. I agree with Rajan's idea of a lead, it would help so much more.

Rabail's Comments
Overall, this article is very thorough and well-written. It touches on several aspects of the theory and its applications and makes for an interesting read. However, there are parts of the article that are a little confusing. In general, the way some of the things are phrased makes it difficult to immediately understand the meaning and requires several reads. Under Origins, the Symbolic Self Completion book is referenced before the central idea it references, which makes it complicated to understand. The Origins section could be improved by expanding the ideas more and explaining them further. The article references various studies which is helpful in understanding the research surrounding the theory, however, in some cases they are not presented in the most effective way. Under Self-Definitional Threats, the article jumps straight into the studies but does not explain what a self-definitional threat is (the same is true for the first application in Internet Communication). This makes the relevance of the study harder to understand. Adding a brief introduction of the concept would make the study immediately understandable. The second study mentioned under there is stated to have six studies and talks about two different parts but only the conclusion of one part is presented. Perhaps, adding a brief conclusion for the second part or just directly linking the study in the body of the article so people could look at it if they wanted to would be helpful. I found the applications to be very helpful and interesting. I think this article definitely serves a purpose and is a great addition to Wikipedia. However, the chances are that it will be accessed by students or others who may not be familiar with the theory and so making it clearer and explaining it further would be helpful.

aciurcina's comments
Very interesting topic and explained quite nicely for a rather abstract/difficult to understand topic. I agree with Rajan that adding a lead before going into details could be helpful so that a reader could grasp or be reminded of the overall concept of the theory in 1-3 sentences. Also, it is very text heavy, and this is made more difficult by the abstract nature of the topic, so finding someway to simplify this or break down sections more could be helpful. I really like the breakdown of application according to disciplines at the end. However, I can't get a sense of the originating discipline of the research, so maybe you could state that explicitly--is it psychology? Sociology? Philosophy? You could even make the Origins section it's own whole section and explore origins from a variety of backgrounds. Overall great job! Aciurcina (talk) 11:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Right. I realized after looking at other articles that ours didn't have a lead. We'll definitely work on that, thanks! :) Jms457 (talk) 20:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Rajan's comments
I really liked your article! I believe that it was well written in that it was clear and concise. Your article was free of major grammar mistakes. The only thing I would have changed would be the layout of your article. I think that if you added a lead to your article, readers can get a better sense of what is to follow. Your articles contains a list of verifiable references so good job on that as well! I also thought that it was good that you stayed focused on your topic and you maintained a neutral view point. I think that you could have used some illustrations. I think that that would have made your article even better. I think this is especially important since you have a lot of text information and you don't want people to get lost in that. Other than that, I think you did a great job on this article!
 * I totally agree with the point that illustrations would be helpful. I actually considered adding some pictures, but I couldn't really think of anything that I could add as pictures for this particular article. Maybe covers of books, I guess? But this article being centered mostly on abstract theory, it was hard to find something that would be both visually presentable and relevant to the article content. Jms457 (talk) 20:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

cmckinne1991's comments
This article was very thorough, and clearly went into depth from both a theoretical and applied standpoint. Even within those categories, you included a variety of examples, so the reader is able to understand Symbolic Self-Completion Theory as it operates in a domain with which they, the reader, are familiar; e.g., self-completion in advertising, self-completion in materialism. My main criticism is that some of the language is not very intuitive; as someone who has little to no experience with this theory, or even the fields in which the theory is commonly used, I really struggled to grasp the concepts at first glance. There has to be a way you can outline the main ideas in layman's terms without losing the technicality of the definitions. At times, it seemed like the theory contradicted itself; e.g., in one section, it said that less feminist test participants self-completed by becoming more feminist, though the basis for the whole theory is, in your words, "adequate representations of [a person's] self-definition, the self-defined personal identity that individuals are committed to". It wasn't clear to me how self-completion transitioned from becoming an adequate representation of one's self, to an adequate representation of something quite opposite from one's self, like with the anti-feminist becoming feminist. Please don't be discouraged by my criticism -- I think overall the article went into depth in a way that was above and beyond expectations, and with a few slight adjustments, the article could serve as a really strong representation of this topic.

A random comment from Esther
To the rest of Group 7 and anyone who might be wondering who the random person with the IP 165.124.128.16 might be: I forgot to log in before editing. The person with the IP 165.124.128.16 on the "View history" list is me :) Jms457 (talk) 21:02, 20 November 2014 (UTC)