User talk:Hasketdj/sandbox

When you are defining the Fundamental Attribution Error, I find your definition to be confusing and hard to follow. Instead of using two quotes, perhaps you should instead paraphrase the definition in your own words. Or maybe use the quote and then explain what that means in layman's terms. For your second quote, I honestly just have trouble following it, though I think I understand what it means. Again, I feel it would be better to paraphrase it. Of course you would still cite both of these ideas, but I think as it is, it's complicated and hard to read. SKPsych237 (talk) 13:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I like the way that you first provide a scientific explanation for Implicit Personality Theory and then also rephrase it in common terms that makes it a little easier to understand. I would remove the word "limited" when you say "limited information available to us," because it doesn't feel objective, and this also works when you have extensive information. The only other thing is that the first sentence confuses me a little. Is "Implicit Personality Theory" a scientific theory or is it something that each person has. I was under the impression it was a theory about how people infer personality from external cues, but the way that you have it now, it sounds like each person has many different implicit personality theories about different people they meet. SKPsych237 (talk) 13:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

So in general I like you definition of attribution, however, I am a little confused about why you chose to use the worlds "simple" and "volatile." Firstly, these aren't mutually exclusive of each other, secondly, I am unsure about how they relate to what you're talking about. If I am simply missing some reason about why you chose those words, please just add it on the talk page, so I can understand. SKPsych237 (talk) 12:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

The definition for Fundamental Attribution Error that is in quotation marks may be bit too much for people unfamiliar with the terms/psychology that is included in the definition. I would maybe replace words like “attributor” and add examples after both “situational factors” and “dispositional factors”. (i.e., “situational factors such as luck,) FoellgCE (talk) 19:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Compared to the Fundamental Attribution Error definition that was provided in quotes, the one provided for attribution theory seems more simplistic and easy to follow, though “social perceiver” may have the same problem as “attributor” did like I mentioned above. Maybe for both definitions you could only use bits and pieces of the actual quotation and put the rest in your own words (i.e., change “social perceiver” -> “how an individual would be able to take in information ‘to explain events. FoellgCE (talk) 19:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Instead of a “in the real world” I would use to ‘one instance of this would be’ in order to have more of an “encyclopedic style”. Using “their” instead of “his/her” before “personality” may be better as well, followed by “in which the individual is interacting” instead of “he/she is acting”. This would go well with the next section where “individual” and “their” is used in the place of “he/she” and “his/her”. FoellgCE (talk) 19:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Overall, I thought that this was a really interesting article and I think that you did a great job with the explanations and examples. I really like the organization of the article and the content seemed accurate. Aside from the few things that I’ve mentioned, I think that someone unfamiliar with the topic could get a decent grasp of the subject based on the information that you are presenting. FoellgCE (talk) 19:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

For me I did not know much on this topic and it was very good to put in the exact definition from the source but it also confused me. I had to read it multiple times to try and understand it. I feel that if someone who had no previous knowledge of the topic read this, which they would still not be able to follow. I do like that you put the quote of the definition but I would have liked to see a follow up in your own words what it means to make it easier to understand. I did like that you included an example to clarify the term. I thought it was a good idea to include a “real world” example, since people tend to enjoy those more to see how it affects their own life. I would have changed that is that you would have taken out “his/her” and instead changed it to “their”. Maybe even change the sentence to “Furnham and Gunter is the view of the justness of poverty may be affected by someone’s financial statues” in order to stay in the encyclopedic style. Another thing I did like was that you restructured the section on implicit personality theory. It was made easier to understand from the original text and I did not get lost. Also it was great how you broke it down even further by stating “put another way” it made easier to understand by putting your spin on the terms meaning. Salasjr (talk) 23:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)salasjr

Overall, I thought you and your team did a great job with the explanations and the examples, which made me more interested in the article itself. After doing my own little research on this revision the accuracy of the content is correct. I think the content of the whole page is pretty clear easy for anyone to understand. As well as the organization it was a nice set up and that if someone would review this article who had no previous knowledge would still be able to understand the concept of the subject.Salasjr (talk) 23:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

You add a lot of information to the topic-- I found the "self" section particularly nicely elaborated.

I like the simplification in the introduction, though I'd disagree with the characterization of dispositions as "simple" and situations as "volatile". Some of your other edits could benefit from this simple, direct tone. In some places, your edits actually create inaccuracies (.e.g, that the FAE is due to "reasoning" being misidentified). In others, the tone is unprofessional. ("Fun Fact: If people perceive themselves...") This should be addressed.

The citations use APA style, not Wikipedia style; this should be corrected in your next revision. Additionally, there are comma splices and other typos that should be cleaned up. Regretscholar (talk) 23:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)