Wikipedia:Peer review/Kohlberg's stages of moral development/archive1

Kohlberg's stages of moral development
Given that there are very few psychology GAs/FAs, and also given that i've been coddling this article for over a year now, i think it's ready for prime time. Don't want NPA personality theory giving psych articles a bad name, ya know? i want this one to be good. Tear it apart, please. JoeSmack Talk (p-review!) 01:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.


 * Note: These comments were removed because they contained broken HTML which screwed up the formatting of the entire Peer review page. —Psychonaut 02:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It's always nice to see serious work on a social sciences related article. Check history for bot suggestions removed by Psychonaut; my suggestions are: 1) more refs; there are still paras without a citation 2) 'Other notes on the stage model' is a strange title, please rename 3) Explain (in lead) why the sections of 'Theoretical assumptions (philosophy)' and 'Examples of Applied Moral Dilemmas' (decapitalize, plz) are relevant here 4) 'Notes' should be renamed 'Further reading'. 5) pictures would be nice - perhaps a graph like that on sociocultural evolution would be in order? Keep up the good job!--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response! I was afraid no one would want to peer review it! I've made the section title changes you suggested. Tell me if the new lead-in is what you wanted when you asked for it to include the philosophy and moral dilemma stuff. As for more sources, Kohlberg was very prolific so there is a lot out there - my library only has so many though. I'll work on it. And as for images; gah, i really want to add some, i just don't know how i could make a helpful one. His theory really is just a table: three levels, six stages. Maybe one of a person in a chair next to an experimenter with a tape recorder in the middle, but i can't find one like that on the commons. JoeSmack Talk (p-review!) 18:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

You're far down the Peer Review page now, so I hope you're still watching. :) Comments: Regards, – Outriggr § 09:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * In there is no referent for "it" - in the previous sentence you're talking about "stages" and "planes"! I'm not sure about "was inspired when"; isn't it usually "inspired by", as if to say the development of the model began in his mind at that time, not that it all popped into his head at once? (If you follow.) Finally, I find the meaning of "there" unobvious, since U of C was mentioned in passing in the previous sentence. I could likely make points like this throughout the article.
 * The inline citations should come after the punctuation (primarily, I see notes before commas).
 * " (although none function at their highest stage at all times)": does "none" mean people ("no one")? I know it does, but the preceding sentence doesn't support that.
 * The bookmark-links to each stage are unnecessary as they are in the same article, and there is already a table of contents. I wonder if this section is needed at all - I suggest not.
 * Not clear why paragraphs related to stages are indented...
 * In "Theoretical assumptions (philosophy)", if you could convert the bullets to prose, the whole article will be free of bullets/lists! (A de facto FA requirement.)
 * Finally, the article in outline seems quite comprehensive and well-organized. Is there work inspired by this theory that could be mentioned, parallel to "criticisms"?
 * Carol Gilligan, James Fowler, Jane Loveinger; all down there in the See Also section take off of Kohlberg's work. Gilligan was a scathing critic, a peer and a good friend to Kohlberg all at the same time - her work is sometimes seemingly largely a 'fuck-you-you're-wrong' reaction from kohlberg's (you could call that 'inspired', heh). You could say that he pretty much created the field from the starter-kit that Piaget laid out with his childhood work. I was just going to leave it at 'See Also' because I am trying to be careful to make this an article about the stages and not about Kohlberg and not about anyone else and their theories. JoeSmack Talk 09:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I see your point. I still think that to make the article "comprehensive", an FA requirement, adding a couple of paragraphs on outgrowths of the theory would make it comprehensive, and better balance the criticisms section. (Ah yes, the "fuck-you-you're-wrong' reaction". I get in trouble with that occasionally.) – Outriggr § 22:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)