User:MLYCCX/sandbox

HEXACO Project sandbox work with Mason Lesh: User:MLYCCX/hexaco sandbox

Personality Test Article Evaluation:

This article is rated a start class of high importance and a first glance it's fairly easy to tell why. The article is good about keeping a neutral tone throughout its length. All of the topics discussed on the page seem to be relevant to the topic at hand. There is a huge need for many more citations in this article and quite a few of the sources cited are rather old. This could be because some of the topics discussed are based on very old research like Cattel's 16PF Questionnaire, regardless, it should still be evaluated for more up to date research on the topic. The article also has a rather poor citation to text proportion for an encyclopedia. There are large paragraphs that are completely devoid of any references at all even like in the "Respondent Faking" section. This would be an easy place to begin improving the article.

I think the "Examples" section of the Personality Tests article is another section that could use quite a few improvements. In this section there are roughly 20 examples of commonly used personality inventories along with short descriptions of their applications and the framework they are based on. I think this section is particularly useful to someone looking into the subject. However, one of the bullets in his section simply says "Other tests include..." And goes on to list 7 or 8 other personality tests with no descriptions of them whatsoever. This was shocking to me, because some of the inventories brushed over in this section are rather important to the field of personality theory such as the Enneagram of Personality and Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. I believe these two should at least be given the same 1 to 2 sentence description that the other tests discussed in the article are given, and this is likely where I will choose to improve the article.

I was also surprised to see the rather aggressive disagreement happening on the article's talk page in regard to an external link to the IPIP website. Some editors felt the link was inappropriate to include because it doesn't provide value to the article or that it might even advertise commercial services/products. If including the link doesn't break any Wikipedia guidelines, I am very supportive of it being included. As a student researching the subject, I find the IPIP website to be incredibly high in educational value and think it's important that someone learning about Personality Tests know of its existence. I think in the end this debate was resolved by making a separate Wikipedia article about the IPIP and linking the Personality Test article to that page.