User:Archiea1/sandbox

Article evaluation
Elements of a Quality Article Clear and easy to understand, clear structure with several headings and subheadings, balanced coverage with many aspects of the subject, neutral coverage, no bias or persuasion, and reliable sources. I plan to go more in depth about group and individual roles in social psychology. The sources I have chosen will teach me more about this aspect about group social psychology.

For my assigned article Social Psychology I will be using the following sources for information: Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1974). Psicologia sociale dei gruppi. Bologna: Il mulino. Gergen, K. J. (1973). Social psychology as history. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 26(2), 309-320.

In my article, I have noticed that there are several places where citations are needed. After reviewing the talk page, everyone involved in editing this article said the same thing. The article has great supporting fact for each aspect of the article. All of the sub topics have excellent and concise facts. Everything was written in a way a regular person searching through Wikipedia could understand. The article is actually rated as a Class B article, which isn't bad at all. However, a lot of the supporting facts are missing citations. I plan to be a part of the effort of the effort of finding the right sources for the facts already added into the article. (Archiea1 (talk) 19:42, 8 February 2018 (UTC))

Melynda's Evaluation
The article overall seems like it has a lot of information present, however as you stated there are many citations missing. There are some citations that are there, but are simply missing page numbers that can be added. If this were my article I would also reword a lot of the sentences, to make them a little more reader friendly. For example in the first paragraph the second to last sentence states: "The statement that others' presence may be imagined or implied suggests that humans are malleable to social influences even when alone..." It seems to be making a point about the statement, but doesn't ever reference where the statement came from. The sentence is also a little bit confusing and can be reworded in another way. There are several areas in the article where this is the case and I would focus my attention on that and finding the missing citations and it should be a great improvement.

I agree! There were so many citations missing. I foresee a huge challenge ahead of me in rewording a few of the sentences in the article. I can barely understand them myself. I also believe that finding the correct citations for information that is already in the article will be a challenge. I'll be reviewing the training to see if it has any helpful tips on going back to find the right sources and properly citing what is already there. Excellent feedback! Thanks Melynda! (Archiea1 (talk) 22:15, 17 February 2018 (UTC))