Talk:Performance psychology

Scope for Improvement

This article on Performance Psychology has a good general overview and was relatively useful. I think that there is plenty of room to expand on this topic. The first sentence mentions that performance psychology studies the factors that allows people to succeed in society, but it doesn't go into detail on what those factors are. The article also mentions that performance psychology is a growing field in sports and business, but is doesn't touch on in what other professions. It references the relationship to sports briefly and then it jumps to how it should be applied to front line workers and that if they aren't motivated or trained that will not succeed. I think there should be additional supporting facts. The field is a very broad field and research can lead it into many different directions. I think as this page grows, several different specific topics will be expanded upon such as how it is applied in sports, corporate management and the front line workers, mental and motivational facotrs that improve performance, focus, leadership and many more. I look forward to taking the opportunity to work on this page.(WheelsDudley (talk) 22:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC))

Relative performance graphic

The graphic at the head of the article needs to be elaborated on. Its legend, simply 'Relative performance' means little. It would ideally need to have clear axes and scales, and the legend could be expanded on; instead of being at the top, the graphic ought to be located within a section that deals with it or where it would lend greater understanding to or illustrate elements in the text. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments from DYK

I'm pasting over some of the concerns that were mentioned at this article's DYK review, so that they will still be easy to find after that review is removed.

• Tagged "POV", article reads like a press release for its topic. Long paragraphs with a single "reference", which in one case went to the home page of mindtools.com, where no discernible support for the claims in that paragraph were found. Sorry but this is not ready for the main page. For a better article model, check out Cognitive psychology. Sharktopus ^talk 00:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but the quality of referencing in the article is poor. Most of the references are links to the index page of various personal websites; reliable sources for Wikipedia articles are generally individual works, not just links to the front page of a website, and they are usually published in reliable outlets, not just someone's self-published, self-hosted website. One of the references, http://www.geoffgreenwood.com/, appears to be a partial Wikipedia mirror, as some of its content is identical to the article's. (I'm assuming good faith and supposing that that site updated itself to be a copy of the Wikipedia content, rather than supposing that the author of this article plagiarized some of the content of that website, which is a much more serious problem; but even if it's the site that copied Wikipedia, that just shows that the site should not be used as a reference for a Wikipedia article.)
  • Furthermore, the article contains no references demonstrating that this field has produced any academic literature in peer-reviewed publications, which leads me to believe that this is a "self-help"-like pseudoscience. But that's really beside the point here; the problem with references is enough to reject this article from DYK. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
  • On a side note, the way the references are displayed in the page is also not ideal. The links are hidden behind misleading titles. References should give accurate and full reference information (the title of the page, publisher, author, date written, and date accessed). Labeling, for instance, www.mindtools.com as "Career developmental Skills" (which is not the title of the website) doesn't give the reader any clue of what that link is before they click on it; the same applies to labeling www.brianmac.co.uk/psych.htm as "Psychology", and most of the rest of the references on the page. Normally I would try to give examples of how to properly format a reference, but since most of these references are inappropriate and need to be removed anyway I think it will be better for you just to look at a better-developed article, like Cognitive psychology which another reviewer suggested above. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't know why this is still categorized as a stub, great job on the assignment. --Moderndope (talk) 20:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

links

The concept has good analysis and advantageous but the links are insufficient in this article. Lizia7 (talk) 16:26, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Page problems, redirect

Earlier today I noticed this article was overflowing with spammy, unreliable sources linked at the bottom of the page. After going through them I went through the cited sources. The only source which meets WP:RS remotely is an article on the Psychology Today website (which, as a popular psychology publication, is pretty poor). The article was ad-like and even cited commercially-motivated websites of some of its practitioners (and tagged for both issues for a long time). So I removed the bad sources, the worst links, some big, unsourced claims, and started upon looking for sources myself.

Sources exist, to be sure, but I'm noticing that in the scholarly psychology literature, "performance psychology" is based on sport psychology, which reframed itself as a sub-field of performance psychology in order to create an umbrella that covers application of sport psychology ideas, techniques, etc. to domains other than sports. This tight connection is clear from this article, which is dominated by a long section on sport psychology. So there's likely an article that could be written here, but the one we presently have is effectively unsourced, written like an advertisement, and doing more harm than good. Since the distinction seems largely to be based on clientele rather than methods/basis, and because the article for sport psychology is leaps and bounds better, I'm boldly redirecting it to sport psychology for now (without prejudice to restoring/rebuilding it). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Performance Science

Anyone wishing to contribute to this topic (i.e. the scientific study of human performance across domains and methodologies) can contribute to the page on Performance science. geordie (talk) 17:40, 14 December 2015 (UTC)