Talk:Social identity theory/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Piotrus (talk · contribs) 13:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Issues: 1) article is underlinked; examples from the lead: behaviours, legitimacy, social categorization (it's ok for some topics to be red links); then the first para is totally without any links. This problem continues throughout most of the article.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   I added citation needed tags. Otherwise refs seem high quality.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Hard to say if you are not a specialist it that little tiny area of social sciences. I may be a sociologist but I am not a social identity expert. AGF pass.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Obvious pass.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Obvious pass.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Obvious pass.

7. Overall: Preliminary review shows to quick-to-id problems: underlinking and several paragraphs missing end-of-para cites (which also raises the doubts whether all sentences missing cites can be trusted to referenced by cites following some later sentences). For now, I'll place it on hold, and will continue the review once those major issues have been fixed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:43, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

   Pass/Fail:

Hi Piotrus. Thanks for taking the time to do the review. I have tried to address the two concerns you raised (i.e. the underlinking and the odd missing reference). Let me know if you have further thoughts. Cheers Andrew (talk) 12:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

All right. I will now provide a full review (previous one was just a red flag check; this time I carefully read the entire article):

• WP:LEAD recommends that lead should not contain new information; this allows to reduce the number of citations per lead. I'd suggest that all claims from the lead like about who invented the theory are copied into the main text, and then the citations from the lead are moved to the main body. This is NOT a requirement, but is is a recommendation.
• why social categorization is not red linked? WP:RED should be observed.
• Last lead sentence, beginning with "To avoid confusion", reads akward. Suggest rewarding (add it to "is suggested" and move it earlier?)
• I do tend to nitpick ilinks. Consider ilinking: social structural, motivated, distinctiveness, status group, Dominic Abrams, empirical.
• Suggestion: consider renaming the "Positive distinctiveness" section to "Positive distinctiveness motivations"
• At one point, the article has a page reference (p. 38). This takes me to a more serious problem with references. Haslam (2001) is a book reference, yet all but this and later (p. 40) citation are missing page references. Please note that WP:CITE at GA level requires that all book references give a page (or a small range). This also is a problem for other book cites in this article (Hogg, another Haslam work - please fix all of those). In another place, (p. 142) is used for a journal. It is ok not cite journal pages, but it is of course preferable to do so. But (p. 142) does not belong in text; I'd suggest creating a separate ref for the page-version for this article ref. Ditto later for (p. 346).
• "identity management strategy" is mentioned once, without any explanation what it is. I suggest expanding and defining this term somewhere. It is doubly confusing as this section discussed "Positive distinctiveness strategies", but now mentions a different set?
• "individualistic approach and an interactionist approach" - what are those? Best solution: ilink
• "however, the collectivist perspective" - however, this perspective was not even mentioned before
• "minimal group studies" - what are those? link or explain
• Oakes - unlike other researchers mentioned so far in text by name, his/her first name is not given. Suggest adding it and ilinking.
• " punishing the in-group less benefits self-esteem less than" - grammar? one less too many? or just confusing, suggest rewording
• "self-definitional dimensions" - jargon warning, please explain what those are or link them
• Charles Stangor and John Jost - more names that should be ilinked
• "SIT-lite" please clearly explain for layman what SIT is. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

These comments are extremely useful. Now, if the article is developed in line with all of them, it is in my view a candidate not for a "good article", but for an "excellent article". NB: Opinion of a sociologist trying to do interdisciplinary work... --Aflis (talk) 15:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Piotrus. It obviously took me a while but I have been through your review. I believe that I have made changes reflecting most of the points you have raised. There are only a couple of occasions where I chose not to make changes. I will explain each presently:

• Dot point one – I do agree that some there is a lot of information in the lead and that it is citation heavy. I also agree that a ‘development’ section is something that the article should have and that this would help address these issues. In the end, unfortunately, I just didn’t feel like I had the time to do this. I will probably get around to it eventually, just not for this review.
• Don’t point five – I am hesitant to change the title of the positive distinctiveness section to something like ‘positive distinctiveness motivation’. For some reason I feel like what stands currently is fine. That being said, I do not have a strong opinion about this.
• Don’t point ten – The minimal group studies are wiki-linked when they first come up so no change was made there. Eventually there would be some elaboration in a development section, but as I mentioned above I do not have time to do this immediately.

I hope you find all of this satisfactory. Of course, let me know of your further thoughts. Cheers Andrew (talk) 13:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I think the article has improved enough to be GA, so I am passing this review. More work may be needed for Featured, if you want to keep working on it. Otherwise I will be happy to review another GA of yours for WP:SOCIO :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)