Talk:Deindividuation

Does this not imply then, that our method of educating young minds together while they are still developing emotionally, is to cause this de-individuation and create a herd-like, self-interested group-dependant mass of consumers and idlers requiring fast food and fast entertainment?86.149.137.70 (talk) 18:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Deindividuation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090307032756/http://people.exeter.ac.uk:80/tpostmes/deindividuation.html to http://people.exeter.ac.uk/tpostmes/deindividuation.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:27, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

B-Class Criteria

One of our students, Robertekraut, is interested in judging the quality of the article and updating the page tags accordingly. Just at a quick glance it looks like it would pass Start-Class criteria, so I'm going to post the information for judging this against the B-Class criteria:

1. The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. Any format of inline citation is acceptable: the use of <ref> tags and citation templates such as {{cite web}}: Empty citation (help) is optional.
2. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing.
3. The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind.
4. The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it does not need to be "brilliant". The Manual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously.
5. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams and an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content.
6. The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. Although Wikipedia is more than just a general encyclopedia, the article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible.

Robert, if you want you can answer these questions to determine whether or not the article meets B-Class. What this is basically looking for is an article that is mostly complete and without major problems. If you're unsure about any of these, feel free to ask me any questions. In general, if you're unsure if something meets a specific criteria it's usually better to err on the side of caution and assume that it doesn't and try to improve it to meet this guideline before approving it. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:15, 5 October 2017 (UTC)