Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Princeton University Department of Psychology/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 16:17, 3 August 2008.

Princeton University Department of Psychology

 * Nominator(s): Gyan Veda (talk)

I am nominating this article for featured article because it is carefully-written and replete with appropriate, reliable references. The writing is unbiased and its style is appropriate to Wikipedia's standards. I am also nominating this article because few psychology-related articles have been featured.

Most importantly, I am nominating this article because it accomplishes what a Wikipedia article ought to do: It integrates information about the Princeton University Department of Psychology that was previously dispersed in hundreds of sources into one coherent article that is helpful to anyone who is curious about the subject matter.

I thank you in advance for any comments that you may have about this article and how it can be improved. Gyan Veda (talk) 16:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Incomplete. I see the article has used the Princeton Companion, yet seems to have missed the article on the department itself. Where is the mid-nineteenth century course on Psychology? Where is the Psychological Review, published at Princeton? Where is the link between Wundt, James McCosh, and Baldwin?
 * Response. The Princeton Companion's article on the department itself is now cited where appropriate.
 * The mid-nineteenth century course on Psychology was not referenced because the focus of the article was on the Department of Psychology itself. Mentioning the course, which was offered prior to the establishment of the department, seemed tangential.
 * The Psychological Review was not mentioned for a similar reason: To maintain the focus of the article on the department itself. Though James Mark Baldwin was a professor in the department at the time that the journal was founded, the journal was not published by the department itself. (It is currently published by the American Psychological Association). Indeed, the co-founder, James McKeen Cattell, was not even a member of the Princeton psychology faculty; he was a professr at Columbia University.
 * James McCosh's writings on psychology are one of the factors that brought Wilhelm Wundt's work to the attention of American psychologists. James Mark Baldwin studied under both McCosh and Wundt. His academic legacy, therefore, popularized the psychology work of both scholars.--Gyan Veda (talk) 17:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Precisely; and the article should say all of this bullet point, instead of dragging in Wundt as an (apparently irrelevant) chronological marker. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The article now says mentions the link between the three authors explicitly.--Gyan Veda (talk) 19:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This is characteristic. James Mark Baldwin says what he did, and who he was; the paragraph here is less than a CV: a handful of degrees and a date of appointment.
 * Response. The paragraph about James Mark Baldwin lists only information about him that is relevant to the Department of Psychology. Again, I wanted to keep the focus of the article on the department itself. I did provide a link to the James Mark Baldwin article on Wikipedia for anyone who may have been interested in learning more about him.--Gyan Veda (talk) 17:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In short, it says nothing of interest about him, or what he did with the department. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The paragraph does mention his profession, the institution in which he studied, his role in the department, and his most noteworthy relation to the department: His role as founder.--Gyan Veda (talk) 19:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, do we need the list of alumni? Is it complete, for so long-standing a doctoral program? I doubt it; yet it adds little to the article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Response. Unfortunately, the list of alumni is not complete, but it gives the reader a sense of the institutions in which the alumni end up. The focus on alumni who work in academic institutions is an asset to the article because many of its readers may be academicians themselves and, consequently, they will appreciate something akin to an academic tree of the department.--Gyan Veda (talk) 17:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Others may disagree with me; but I do not think I am answered. One point deserves discussion: since the list of alumni does not include doctoral advisors, it does not serve the purpose of an academic genealogy, which would in any case be better done as a set of templates or categories. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This section is not meant to serve as an academic genealogy per se, but as an institutional genealogy. The list is a reference of the names that have at one point been associated with the department as students in it. Last summer, incidentally, I helped a psychology professor with a project that required him to find out the dates of graduation, the names of schools, and the names of the present workplaces of dozens of social psychologists. His endeavor would have been easier if he would have had a resource such as this alumni list.--Gyan Veda (talk) 19:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's one specialized user; why he didn't look at the author's notes of any journal in the field we will never know. I don't think we need it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose


 * Format references per WP:CITE/ES to include at least publisher and access date
 * Working on this.--Gyan Veda (talk) 19:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What use does the Gallery have if the images can be linked to with a link to the Commons?
 * Not sure how to do this. Could you help me out?--Gyan Veda (talk) 19:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Lead is too short for such a long article; expand it.
 * Done.--Gyan Veda (talk) 19:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Bullets are probably more appropriate for the "Historic Faculty" section
 * Done.--Gyan Veda (talk) 19:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Where's the reference for "Current Faculty"?
 * Done.--Gyan Veda (talk) 19:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "See Also" &rarr; "See also"
 * Done.--Gyan Veda (talk) 19:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The section titles should be lowercase except for the first letter and any words that should be capitalized because they are pronouns
 * Done.--Gyan Veda (talk) 19:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me know when these are done then I will gladly strike my oppose. Cheers!

Gary King ( talk ) 17:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I can answer one of these: the current faculty can be found on the department webpage; the version linked to in external links seems to be down. Please consult WP:WHEN. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments
 * Please format all the bare urls with titles.
 * APA fomat, which I think is most appropriate for an article on a psychology-related topic, requires bare urls. See [here].--Gyan Veda (talk) 13:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Per the MOS though, links in references need a title. Manual of Style (links) Ealdgyth - Talk 14:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What makes http://www.socialpsychology.org/ a reliable source?
 * Social Psychology Network is one of the most trusted websites for information about social psychologists. It is endorsed by the major professional societies of social psychologists.--Gyan Veda (talk) 13:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I see a too great reliance on the Princeton site itself for information, as much as possible third-party sites should be used.
 * Many of the links to the Princeton site have been taken out. The ones that remained have information that could not be obtained anywhere else and that is relatively objective (i.e., name of faculty).--Gyan Veda (talk) 13:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * http://www.mountsinai.org/Research/Centers%20Laboratories%20and%20Programs/Attention%20Deficit%20Hyperactivity%20Disorder%20Centeradult_clinical.shtml Deadlinked
 * Fixed--Gyan Veda (talk) 13:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What makes http://www.facinghistorycampus.org/Campus/rm.nsf a reliable source?
 * Likewise http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/index.htm?
 * Classics in the History of Psychology is a reliable source because it is edited by Associate Professor of Psychology Christopher Green at York University. Additionally, he is a Consulting Editor to History of Psychology, the Founding Editor of the History & Theory of Psychology Eprint Archive, and he was elected a Fellow of the American Psychological Association. I would say that makes him pretty knowledgeable. Also, he has an editorial board composed of other professors to assist him with CHP. See here.--Gyan Veda (talk) 13:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And http://www.comnet.ca/~pballan/Index.html?
 * Paul Ballantyne holds a Ph.D. in psychology and is a published author. See here.--Gyan Veda (talk) 13:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This one is more problematic. Is he a professor? What has he published? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * He is a professor at York University. His CV is online. The link that is given above has a list of his publications. So does the CV, though.--Gyan Veda (talk) 14:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Personal communications are by definition not published and not suitable for use as sources in Wikipedia.
 * APA guidelines on suitable sources do allow for the use of information gained in personal communications. See here. Your point is well taken, though, APA style does not require them to be cited in the reference section. I will take them out.--Gyan Veda (talk) 13:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We're not editing an article for an APA publication, we're doing articles for Wikipedia, so unfortunately, the WP guidelines on sourcing apply. You will probably need to replace them with printed sources, depending on what is being sourced. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Otherwise links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose
 * You need to assume that nobody knows where Princeton is located. While you have the street corner why not add the city, state, and country?
 * Since its establishment in 1893, the department has been among the foremost psychology departments in the country thanks to the contributions of its faculty and students. So the day it opened it was the formost? I think you need an outside source (sources would be better) to back this up.
 * Today, the department continues to be a leader in psychology research and scholarship. Today is not encyclopedic. And you need sources for this statement.
 * Two sentences in a row starting with "The department" in the lead.
 * The department's distinguished faculty have received numerous awards, which include a Nobel Prize,[8] six Distinguished Contributions awards,[9][10][11] the American Psychological Association's highest recognitions, and three William James Fellow awards,[12] one of the two highest recognitions awarded by the Association for Psychological Science (APS). This has a lot going on. I am not clear, does the two highest recognitions refer to the James Fellow award?
 * The department is presently... Presently is not encyclopedic. How about since 2000... And again with the department. You need to find some other way to refer to it besides the department.
 * ...the laboratory thrived as a center... Does any outside source say this?
 * Wikilink university president
 * "the first laboratory in this country, if not in the world, dedicated solely to the teaching and investigation of scientific psychology." Direct quotes need a citation immediately after them.
 * The building was named in honor of Henry Eno, the principal donor and research associate in psychology. Why not put this sentence with the first mention of the building?
 * University president James McCosh was one of the first people to bring the experimental psychology of the German psychologists Wilhelm Wundt and Gustav Fechner to the attention of scholars in the United States. Outside source. First in the US is a big claim.
 * During this period, score of the department's research... is this a proper use of score, it seems strange to me?
 * Does Princeton have a School of Engineering article, if so wikilink.
 * Francis W. Roudebush '22... I don't think the use of '22 is encyclopedic. You could write alumnus Francis...
 * For the first time, laboratories could be built and equipped to house the various new branches of the rapidly-developing experimental psychology. Why could be built? Lack of money, people, what?
 * When using the same source more than once you should use  followed by the citation. And then for every subsequent usage use This needs to be done throughout the article.
 * What is modern psychology? Is it the same as it was before 1968?
 * You need outside sources for the history section. You also need more than that one large article and two other building specific articles for the entire history of the department. A history should not be taken from one source, but multiple sources that give various viewpoints.
 * The department has continued to thrive since its establishment in the nineteenth century. Its achievements in psychological research, scholarship, and instruction have been continually recognized. The department's graduate program has been ranked fifth best in the United States by U.S. News and World Report (USNWR),[22] fifteenth by the Princeton Review's "Gourman Report of Graduate Programs,"[23] and twelfth best by the National Research Council.[24] The department's undergraduate program has been ranked eighteenth best in the United States by the "Gourman Report of Undergraduate Rankings."[25] Its individual graduate programs have received high national rankings as well. USNWR ranked its behavioral neuroscience program sixth best[26] and its social psychology program seventh best.[27] Source for thrive? Source for continually recognized? US News is a magazine and should be italicized. What years are these rankings from? What is the Gourman Report? Sixth and seventh best in the US, the world, history?
 * Historic faculty should be a paragraph of written text not bullet points.
 * Alumni in academic and research institutions should be its own article like List of Princeton University people but for the department's alumni. Also, you should have a single paragraph discussing the most notable alumni with the link to the alumni list above. The historic faculty could be added to the list article too if desired.
 * The department counts with the requisite facilities and specialized equipment that are used to conduct research in modern psychology. How does it count?
 * There shouldn't be external links within the text like Center for the Study of Brain, Mind, and Behavior (CSBMB).
 * The faculty of the CSBMB includes seventeen faculty members from the department. Faculty used twice.
 * The library section needs outside sources.
 * gained a stunning... who says it is stunning? Outside source?
 * A gallery shouldn't be used in an article. Consider uploading them to commons or incorporating more images into the article.
 * Has there been any negative information, scandal, controversy, protest, in the entire history of the department? As this article reads now it is entirely positive.
 * Any interesting experiments, new techniques, new theories, etc.?

Nice start, but I think you have a little ways to go. You need more outside sources. The references also need to be fixed as mentioned above. Please let me know if you have any questions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KnightLago  (talk • contribs) 23:06, July 31, 2008


 * Oppose While a commendable effort on an outwardly narrow topic, the article is suffers from unsubstantiated or unverifiable academic boosterism so common to the vast majority of academic articles. I can't in good faith support the current article's marketing brochure-ese per criteria 1a, 1c, 1d.

The page would have to undergo a serious rewrite and expansion to address my concerns, but I would be happy to follow along and would love to see more representation of specific programs and departments at FA. Madcoverboy (talk) 04:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Instances of flagrant peacockery, boosterism, and otherwise non-neutral or unencyclopedic tone:
 * "has been among the foremost psychology departments in the country thanks to the contributions of its faculty and students" - "among the foremost" is a textbook case of peacockery
 * "Today, the department continues to be a leader in psychology research and scholarship. Its undergraduate and graduate programs are highly-ranked and it has developed a well-respected neuroscience program." - shouldn't this sort of thing be printed on a glossy card stock and placed in an admissions office? What information does this actually convey? Does it differentiate the department at all from the similarly prestigous programs at Harvard, Michigan, Yale, Berkeley, etc. who could make similarly imprecise claims?
 * "The department has continued to thrive since its establishment in the nineteenth century. Its achievements in psychological research, scholarship, and instruction have been continually recognized." - Yawn.
 * "one of the country's foremost authorities", "a leading figure" - must not be that influential if they don't have a wikipedia article :) Give me concrete reasons why they were influential rather than subjecting me to thesauric abuse. If there is no wikipedia article for them, give me some context: What posts did they hold, what theories did they develop, what books did they publish, what students did they advise....
 * "The decision to build depth as well as breadth resulted in a vigorous and popular department. Interdisciplinary research and scholarship has flourished thanks to a group of faculty and students who work across traditional lines"
 * "The complex will house state-of-the-art labs, faculty offices, and classrooms in an attempt to push the university to the forefront of neuroscience and behavioral science research." - So the department's current facilities are implicitly not state-of-the-art and its reputation is not at the forefront of neuroscience and behavioral science? Seems to undermine the rest of the article's content. This imprecision is the exact reason why boosterism must be actively combatted.
 * "No science department can be complete without an academic library that houses the scientific documents that are essential to conduct research and to teach." - Wikipedia shouldn't be in the business of publishing syllogisms.
 * "the library gained a stunning Reading Room" - sounds dangerous.
 * Rather than a "sentence-ized" list of faculty and a lazily attributed "These programs range from..." for desribing the various research programs, the article might be better served (and two birds downed with one stone) if each faculty member's background was presented in some context with his or her own research lab/program
 * The subsections in graduate programs read like overwrought mission statements, not encyclopedic descriptions of each program's foundation, associated faculty, specific examples of previous and current work, student body, degree requirements, descriptive statistics, etc.
 * The various awards should be linked not to their namesakes, but to the article describing the award on either the association page or a stand-alone article if they are so notable.
 * You mention 6 notable theories in the lead but provide no further mention about who developed them, in what historical and intellectual context they were promoted and received, etc. Is there a distinctive "Princeton school of psychology" as there is a "Chicago school of economics", for example?
 * As mentioned above, the alumni list seems to flirt with running afoul of WP:NOT - I don't think it's appropriate to list every alumnus or alumna who ever assumed a faculty position, but how then to draw a line? Certainly, one shouldn't select only those appointments to "prestigous" schools. If they have a wikipedia article or would fulfill WP:PROF if they don't yet have one, both would be reasonable (though certainly imperfect) metrics.
 * Has nothing negative ever happened within the department? Surely it is not a utopian city upon a hill. Contentious tenure disputes? Resignations and departures? Conflicting feelings about participation in WWII, Cold War, Vietnam, student protesters in the 1960s? Changing undergraduate population and curriculum requirements? Hiring diverse faculty? Reductions in federal funding? The answers to some of these might run aground of WP:OR, but a stroll through Lexis Nexis should turn up some dirt on any program so prestigious and well-established.


 * Comment. I endorse the above in large part, but not completely.


 * The importance of the department, is the academic work of its faculty. The education part is hard to do quantitatively. The enrollments have varied over the years and I dont think they're a straight-line record of increasing success continually. It is indicated by the alumni.
 * The list of doctoral alumni shows many people who obviously need WP articles, and I would make them first, and eliminate the rest.
 * As long as the BA graduates are limited to those who became famous psychologists, a case can be made for them too. But write the articles.
 * The research part needs a fuller description of the major groups that had significant influence. Some of the recent work here has had revolutionary implications, and it isnt mentioned specifically, cf. the overly brief article about Elizabeth Gould--and not just her.
 * As for publications, besides Psychological Review, where is and Stevan Harnad's innovative journal Psycoloquy?
 * The extent to which the department had a clinical emphasis at different times needs to be discussed. The extent to which is had a psychoanalytic emphasis at different times needs to be discussed. It's possible to find statistics. I am not quite sure you'll find much in the way of useful published opinions.
 * In general the article is vague, hagiographic, sounds like PR, and is not up to date. For example, para 1 of the Library section is a copyvio; para 2 is out of date, and probably an older copyvio. I wonder about the rest of the article--the Princeton web site is not GFDL.
 * the final sentence mention the projected move to a new building. Only those who know Princeton will realize it is to the opposite end of the campus; there are some implication with respect to change of orientation from psychology as a social science to psychology as a natural science.
 * There is some controversy about articles for individual academic departments. I think this is one department that probably does warrant such an article, and there is enough material to show it. But it shouldn't be FA until it can serve as a model for the others.DGG (talk) 04:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I've reverted the page blanking by the nominator, and will withdraw the nom. Please leave the  template on the page until the Bot comes through, per WP:FAC/ar.  WP:FCDW/March 17, 2008 has tips on how to initiate and invite volunteers to a peer review.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.