Talk:Entitativity

This review is transcluded from Talk:Entitativity/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Andrea Low (talk · contribs) 08:57, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Reviewer: It is a wonderful world (talk · contribs) 11:34, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Andrea Low, you have done a really great job of expanding this article from the disorganized stub it was. I'll review over the next few days. It is a wonderful world (talk) 11:34, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi @It is a wonderful world! Thank you for taking on the task of reviewing and for your very helpful feedback. I'll work on the comments and look forward to hearing more from you! Andrea Low (talk) 18:21, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Andrea Low, I have started the prose review below. The material is quite dense, and I believe there are quite a lot of improvements that can be made, so it is taking me some time to read, identify and properly articulate the points. I hit the gym today, so I need to get a good night sleep!

I plan to do a section or more per day. If you have the time to respond to the points daily and fix any errors that repeat throughout the article, that would be really helpful. Otherwise, feel free to wait until I have finished the full review. It is a wonderful world (talk) 21:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hey It is a wonderful world, do you want me to co-review this with you? A second pair of eyes, or I can take a section or sections if reviewing it yourself is too much. And because I haven't said it yet, thankyou for the source review on history of chocolate. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 01:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Rollinginhisgrave yes that would be great! I would appreciate the help with any sections you feel like reviewing, and would especially appreciate a second pair of eyes. This goes without saying, but if you see any issues the the points I made, feel free to correct me. It is a wonderful world (talk) 09:21, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Rollinginhisgrave if you have a spare moment, I would appreciate if you had a look at some of my points below, I suggested some quite drastic changes so a second opinion on the validity of my points would help. It is a wonderful world (talk) 20:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

You can see where I'm up to now. All looks good so far, I've only really flagged a wikilink. I do think there's quite a bit of conceptual muddiness rather than the technical writing you identified, and a peer review is probably the correct place for this stuff to be worked through rather than in a review checking if the article as it stands meets the criteria. If you're happy for such a review to be conducted through GAN however, it's totally your call, and I'll make such comments on this review. Tell me if you think I'm missing the mark on comments as well of course. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 03:28, 9 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

@It is a wonderful world thanks so much for letting me know! I will make the revisions each day and try to go over similar errors in the rest of the article. Hope you rest well and I'm excited to improve this together! Andrea Low (talk) 04:28, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Andrea Low, thank you for addressing my concerns so quickly! Normally, when dealing with a concern, it is best to reply with a quick statement explaining what you did to fix the concern, or push back if you feel the concern is unjustified. It really helps keep track of changes, and with understanding each other's points. I will add a reply to each point which contains whether the change you made adequately fixes the issue, or suggesting further changes. It is a wonderful world (talk) 09:29, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi @It is a wonderful world thanks for letting me know! I wanted to avoid flooding your notifications but I'll be responding to each concern now Andrea Low (talk) 23:11, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ah I see, I appreciate your concerns! The notifications don't bother me, but if you are concerned about that in the future you can reply in the source code. It is a wonderful world (talk) 16:32, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Per WP:CITELEAD, the lead should only contain citations in a few situations. Most people only read the lead of the article, so that should be the most readable part. The citations should be moved to the body of the article. Take a look at any featured article to see an example. It is a wonderful world (talk) 20:56, 2 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is much better now, with most the citations being moved. Two further concerns:

• I am a bit worried the citations are being lost (there were four citations for the definition in the lead but now they are gone?). You don't want to get rid of the citations entirely, just move them to the appropriate part in the body (in this case, the citations should have been moved to the definition section).
• There are still some citations in the lead, and I don't think any of them qualify inclusion per WP:CITELEAD.

It is a wonderful world (talk) 09:36, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! I was still figuring out earlier the most appropriate way to move them, but I think I've managed to move them to the correct sections now Andrea Low (talk) 09:39, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

I will review the lead after the body, so I have a better understanding of the topic.

Comments by Rollinginhisgrave:

I am more foolhardy than It is a wonderful world, so I will go linearly. Some things may reflect misunderstandings, but that's okay because it will reflect the reader who also goes linearly.

• Opens with WP:REFERS
• I would avoid using the word group in the first sentence. The way it reads is that the concept is how much people deny a group is a group. But, either a) they mean something different by group, or b) the grouper is one opinion among several on whether a cluster is ordered. Using group upfront ascribes validity to the initial aggregation. Correct me if I'm wrong.
• Entitativity refers to the degree to which a group is perceived as a cohesive, unified entity. and Perceived entitativity occurs seem to be in tension. I think the second is wrong, and "a group is perceived to be entitative when"... would be more accurate. Red vs redness.
• The third sentence is almost entirely redundant, it is repeating most of the second sentence.
• Rewrite fourth sentence to avoid WP:SCAREQUOTES on "real" group.~
• "Research shows that" cut
• "perceived entitativity" is a tautology; entitativity refers to perceptions. Evaluations of entitativity would be more appropriate in many places where this is used.
• Individuals are more likely to rely on stereotypes when assessing group members I find this sentence confusing, could you elaborate on why you put it here?
• For in-groups, greater entitativity can enhance group members' sense of group identification and positivity towards the group. is there a way you can write this that avoids using "group" three times?

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 01:50, 9 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

He aimed to explain why some groups, such as families or teams, are perceived as "real" groups, while others, like people waiting in line, are seen as loose aggregates: Without linking this to the word "entitativity" this information is irrelevant to this section, or even this article (it would better belong in Campbell's biography). Here is a fix which ties this information specifically to the word we are discussing the definition of: "He introduced the word when attempting to explain why some groups, such as..." It is a wonderful world (talk) 20:56, 2 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Fully addressed It is a wonderful world (talk) 09:38, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

He proposed that groups which exhibit entitativity are thought to share a sense of unity or coherence that can be empirically measured: The only proposition in this is that entitativity can be empirically measured. The rest is not a proposition but a rephrasing of the previously stated definition. To avoid repeating ourselves, I think this should be cut to "He proposed that entitativity could be empirically measured". I also suggest linking "empirically measured". It is a wonderful world (talk) 20:56, 2 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Fully addressed It is a wonderful world (talk) 09:40, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Since its introduction, entitativity has been defined as the extent to which a collection of individuals is perceived as a cohesive and unified group: The only new information here is that the definition has not changed, which could easily be incorporated into the previous paragraph with a few words. It is a wonderful world (talk) 20:56, 2 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Entitativity was originally defined as the extent to which a collection of individuals is perceived as a cohesive and unified group: This just repeats the first paragraph, so can be cut. It is a wonderful world (talk) 09:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've cut this sentence Andrea Low (talk) 23:14, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

where members are connected in a meaningful way: This has been added to the original definition, but the earlier part of the sentence states that the definition of entitativity has not changed since its introduction. If this has been added, then the definition has changed, and the earlier part of the sentence is wrong. If this part was present in Campbell's original definition, it should be added to his definition. In the previous paragraph. It is a wonderful world (talk) 20:56, 2 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Fixed by doubling down on the definition being changed. I am a little worried the definition has not changed, and "members are connected in a meaningful way" is actually just a proposed way to understand the original definition, but I'll check what the source says on the spot check. It is a wonderful world (talk) 09:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sounds great! I've added a page number to the citation to help with the check Andrea Low (talk) 23:30, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you It is a wonderful world (talk) 16:34, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Entitativity can be understood as the perception that group members share a common origin, which implies that their similarities in attitudes or behavior stem from a shared source. This common origin can come from two main factors: essence and agency: This is a theory (some researchers interpreted a set of data and created this model to explain it). Therefore, it should be attributed (Researcher et al. argue that...). It is a wonderful world (talk) 20:56, 2 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Almost fully fixed. "This common origin can come from two main factors: essence and agency" also needs to be attributed with something like "they further argue that...".

It can be hard to distinguish between a theory/opinion, a theory/opinion with strong evidence, and a fact. The difference between them is often subtle, but it is very important for neutrality that the text makes it clear what is what. It is a wonderful world (talk) 09:51, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! I've incorporated your suggestion Andrea Low (talk) 00:07, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately I don't think "essence" should be linked, or it should be redlinked to "essence (psychology)", because the essence article does not talk about the psychological definition at all. It is a wonderful world (talk) 20:56, 2 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Do you think Structure and agency would be a good link for "essence and agency"? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 03:00, 9 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Essence refers to...: The theorizing has stopped now, because we are now talking definitions.

Both essence and agency contribute to perceptions of group entitativity, meaning a group can be viewed as entitative due to shared traits, collective purpose, or both: Back to theory, attribute. It is a wonderful world (talk) 20:56, 2 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Fully addressed. It is a wonderful world (talk) 09:52, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Comments by Rollinginhisgrave

• Campbell defined entitativity as “the degree of having the nature of an entity,” which distinguishes a true group from a mere collection of individuals. do you think this is different from what you stated in the previous sentences? If not, are you not just repeating yourself?
• He introduced the term to explain why some groups... are perceived as "real" groups The concept does not explain why some groups are perceived as "real" groups, it explains that some groups are perceived as "real" groups.
• individuals' perceptions of meaningful connections within a group some ambiguity whether they are observing meaningful connections and they have perceptions based on that, or the content of their perceptions is that there are meaningful connections.
• a psychological perception that determines whether a collection of individuals is seen as a cohesive social unit the perception does not determine whether..., the perception is the outcome of determinations.
• I found it really confusing that you cite Brewer et al, with the first paper being by Brewer et al, and then the second paper cited precedes that paper.
• You attribute essence as perceived, but not really agency.
• Agency, on the other hand, relates to the shared goals and collective action of group members} Relates to in particular is quite vague, the relationship is not established. This is especially vague compared to essence, which is defined.
• due to shared traits, collective purpose, or both. here you are endorsing that they do have these shared traits, which you were unwilling to do above.

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 03:00, 9 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

For "Distinguishing entitativity from related concepts" to be included in the article, this specific topic must be covered in at least one reliable source, or it is an exercise in WP:SYNTH. This is important because without this limit on inclusion, articles could go on forever reviewing the literature, and would have no limit to their scope. Looking through the sources, I cannot find any coverage of this specific subject, and certainly not enough to warrant a full section on it. It is a wonderful world (talk) 10:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

I get this concern for sure! My reasoning in including this section and these two constructs specifically because in the literature scholars have emphasized the need to be clear about definitions, since these constructs often get confused. For example, Crump et al (2010): Research on the outgroup homogeneity effect has a long history in the study of groups. In contrast, research related to perceived entitativity has only recently been developed. Researchers who have focused on the study of group homogeneity may have been drawing on different literatures and may have been guided by a different perspective than those researchers who study entitativity. Empirical research examining whether there is in fact a meaningful distinction between these two concepts is thus essential. If the two constructs are, in fact, the same, then it could be fruitful to combine the findings in both areas to extend our understanding of group perception. If, as we believe, the constructs of entitativity and similarity are indeed distinct, it will be very important for an understanding of group perception to ascertain both the antecedents and the consequences of perceived entitativity and similarity.

Research has also focused on distinguishing essentialism from entitativity, e.g. Yzerbyt et al (2001): It seems the notions of entitativity and essentialism have developed in fairly independent ways. In our view, however, these two notions should be examined in close connection ... In our view, however, a more heuristic way to formalize the concepts of entitativity and essentialism is to distinguish these two aspects of social perception (Yzerbyt, Rocher, & Schadron, 1997). Whereas entitativity would stand for the more ecological side of group perception, essentialism would refer to its inferential facet.

Haslam et al (2000)'s empirically distinguish essentialism from entitativity as well, which suggests this is a worthwhile clarification to make: The finding that essentialism is not unitary suggests that theorists must be careful not to obscure the distinction, or to mistake one dimension for the whole. Andrea Low (talk) 01:05, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree all of this is relevant. Entitativity's relationship with the concepts is directly within the scope of the article, and the definitions of essentialism and homogeneity are needed to understand these relationships.

I think I worded my concern poorly. The text itself is not synth, as you pointed out it is directly mentioned in the sources, but the scope of the previous title would have been. I think it was a scope mismatch between the title and content of the section. It is fixed now so this is not an issue. It is a wonderful world (talk) 16:54, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

"as we believe" concerns me. It implies that others may believe there isn't a distinction, at a minimum we should be mirroring their attribution, which I don't see in the text.

Additionally, if it does qualify for inclusion, "Distinguishing entitativity from related concepts" is a problematic section name, because it is so similar to saying "how to distinguish entitativity from related concepts" and Wikipedia is not a how to guide (WP:NOTHOW). To fix this problem, the title would be shortened to something like "related concepts", but in that case the paragraphs would better fit in the articles on those concepts. It is a wonderful world (talk) 10:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

To fix these issues, I would recommend:

1. Pick a new section name. I personally quite like "relationship with homogeneity" and "relationship with essentialism", because they have a well defined scope, are not synth or howto, and most of the text in this section is on this topic anyways.
2. Move any material that does not fit the new title to its relevant section in the article, cutting any that is synth It is a wonderful world (talk) 10:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the suggestion! I've edited the heading and tried to rework the prose to fit more appropriately Andrea Low (talk) 01:29, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Looks way better, I think the subsections "relationship with essentialism" and "relationship with homogeneity" can be elevated up a heading level, since they aren't fully encapsulated in the higher level heading "definition".

I will go through the prose of this section properly now. It is a wonderful world (talk) 16:57, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hmm I realise that the subsection headings were subheading 2, so I brought it up a level and it's now subheading 1. Should these be headings on their own?

I might be slower to make revisions these few days as I am traveling, but will try to address issues as they come up Andrea Low (talk) 07:47, 5 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think they should be brought up another level, since they aren't subtopics of the definition. It is a wonderful world (talk) 16:45, 7 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Done! Andrea Low (talk) 02:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Homogeneity and entitativity are distinct but related concepts in group perception.: Cut, it doesn't say anything which can't be inferred from the heading or the next sentence

Although similarity among members can contribute to perceptions of entitativity, the two constructs function differently

• "similarity among members" -> homogeneity
• "perceptions of entitativity" -> entitativity
• I think cut "the two constructs function differently", it is clear from the definitions that they are different concepts. That just leaves the idea that they are both "functions", but I'm not sure you intended that in the precise sense?

Entitativity emphasizes the sense of unity and coherence in a group, while homogeneity focuses on shared characteristics among members: This is just a repeat of the definitions

I'm getting the sense you wrote it quite verbosely, and repeated definitions with slightly different wordings in an effort to make it more accessible to a first time reader? If this is the case, this isn't the way to go about making it more accessible. It has to be assumed that the reader understood it correctly the first time it was mentioned or the article would indefinitely repeat itself.

Although similarity among members[homogeneity] can contribute to perceptions of entitativity: Making use of the defined word

perceptions of entitativity: Isn't this just entitativity?

Similarity among members is one of several cues that can lead to perceptions of entitativity, but it is not always sufficient on its own: Already stated with "similarity among members can contribute to perceptions of entitativity" in the previous paragraph.

Comments by Rollinginhisgrave

• the degree of similarity among group members
• a group of students simply wearing the same color shirt may not be sufficient for others to view them as part of the same group This is going over my head a bit. So they don't know they're students?
• The role of homogeneity in fostering entitativity varies across different group types. this paragraph reads as quite tedious, I think it can be reworded to avoid the effect. The issue is, homogeneity of what? For intimate groups, it reads that you are saying homogeneity of some things isn't important, because they are seen as homogenous in other things (goals, connections).
• Experimental research further demonstrates that entitativity and homogeneity can operate independently. Further? Perhaps "in practice"?
• I really don't like "cues". Is this just reflecting the literature? I feel "considerations" etc would be more appropriate.
• while altering similarity can increase perceptions of homogeneity without increasing entitativity. increasing similarity? Else others should also be couched in "altering" language.
• while homogeneity and entitativity are related constructs, they have distinct influences on how groups are perceived. entitativity doesn't have an influence on how groups are perceived, they are an attribute of the perception.

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 03:00, 9 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Comments by Rollinginhisgrave

• Essentialism and entitativity are related but distinct concepts. cut
• group members are fundamentally alike due to some shared traits could you expand on this given the distinction you drew with homogeneity vs entitativity?
• Entitativity, however, is the perception... they diverge in important ways can be cut as it's repeating information. Most of the second paragraph can be cut or summed up in one sentence as it repeats information seen elsewhere.
• Entitativity, meanwhile, arises from perceived essence-based similarities this needs to be attributed as above.
• Thus, entitativity and essentialism are distinct both in their content structure and in their predictive effects. you can cut this, it's a plain reading that doesn't need to be said

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 05:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think "Antecedents" is a bit too technical a term for a section title. I think something like "factors which increase entitativity" would be more helpful. I support using the more precise term in the text though, but think it should be given a quick definition and link. It is a wonderful world (talk) 11:06, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Revised the heading and also defined antecedent upfront! Andrea Low (talk) 01:34, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Looks good It is a wonderful world (talk) 16:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Researchers theorize that perceptions of entitativity can be influenced by three main types of factors: Well done for attributing as theory. This suffers from weasel wording though, it should either be attributed to a specific researcher or researchers, or to general consensus if you can find reliable sources to support that. It is a wonderful world (talk) 11:06, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Attributed! Andrea Low (talk) 01:34, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

may affect how likely people are to view groups as cohesive units: Cut, we already know the definition of entitativity. It is a wonderful world (talk) 11:06, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Cut Andrea Low (talk) 01:34, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

the qualities of groups that contribute to perceptions of entitativity have received the most attention -> "the group features have received the most attention": Conciseness It is a wonderful world (talk) 11:06, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Done! Andrea Low (talk) 01:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

This introduction to the section does not mention cultural differences as a factor, but that does have a subsection. If this was a factor identified in further research, make a quick mention of that, and I think move that subsection under the original three. It is a wonderful world (talk) 11:06, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the clarification. Lickel et al bundled individual and cultural differences, so I've now grouped them together as well Andrea Low (talk) 01:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

I see, I think that is a good fix! It is a wonderful world (talk) 16:40, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Comments by Rollinginhisgrave

• antecedents—elements or conditions that precede and contribute to the perception of entitativity → "factors".
• into three main types do they give lesser categories? If not, main can be cut.
• "may affect entitativity perceptions"... "can shape how entitative a group appears in specific situations"... "can serve as cues for perceptions of entitativity". Very repetitive, can be made much more concise
• These group features, without any need for comparison to another group, can influence how entitative a group appears to observers. I don't think the previous sentence implied comparison between groups was necessary to evaluate this, such a clarification sentence can be cut.
• three types of antecedents to entitativity

Comments by Rollinginhisgrave

• this display of similarity and unity increases their perceived entitativity → they display similarity and unity, making them appear more entitative to observers.
• : Campbell proposed that the closer together individuals are within a space, the more likely they are to be seen as part of the same group. Proximity acts as a visual cue, as → "within a space: ". The rest is in the next sentence.
• For instance, pedestrians standing together at a bus stop may be perceived as a group because they are positioned closely within the same area.
• I think this section would be well-served by introducing the four attributes upfront, e.g. "Campbell identified four key qualities of groups can that help individuals make these intuitive judgments of groupness: proximity, similarity, common fate and good form. The following sections can elaborate on these, and don't need to be introduced with "The first cue is", "Secondly, Campbell proposed that" etc
• Secondly, Campbell proposed that similarity serves another cue to entitativity. and , giving them an increased sense of entitativity through visual uniformity cut
• Links in this section would more appropriately go to their subsection in Principles of grouping, as these are the sections being summarized in what you have linked.
• "These concepts draw on principles of Gestalt psychology" seems to refer to "pregnance (or Pragnanz), good continuity, and good figure", but from what I'm reading at Gestalt psychology, all of the points are drawn from Gestalt psychology (proximity, similarity, common fate)
• Campbell states that perception that elements that align within a coherent spatial organization, pattern, or structure are seen as part of the same unit. confusing grammar
• In one influential article you will need a cite for it being influential.
• Notably, these findings on Wikipedia we avoid using words like this, as it is considered editorializing which we don't do. Attribute it being notable (the researchers emphasised etc.)
• In your captions, there is some conflict between attributing: Groups where individuals are more proximal are proposed to be perceived as more entitative and not attributing: Groups where individuals share visual similarity are perceived as more entitative
• Moreover, while how... matters, but also Given this is repeating the content of the previous paragraph, you can put this in very few words (e.g. beyond quantity, )
• Visible, coordinated actions this paragraph, with reference to "common fate", can be summarized in one sentence.
• "market pricing relational style" expand on what this means.
• increases perceptions of group cohesion or entitativity can you expand on what "or" is doing in this sentence?
• These findings indicate that when group this seems to be just a rewrite of the first sentence of the paragraph

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 05:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

I will start this review by working through the sourcing, because the biggest problem with this article is that it violates GA criterion 2b:

reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)

Since several sentences and even paragraphs are not cited, the reader will be unable to verify that the text is not just pure conjecture. To fix this, all content that could reasonably be challenged should be cited no later than the end of the paragraph, but ideally at the end of each sentence.

Although the criteria wording "could reasonably be challenged" is open for interpretation, the established norm for GA articles is that this includes anything which is not as obvious as "the sky is blue". Since this is a scientific article, the verifiability is paramount. It is a wonderful world (talk) 13:21, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi @It is a wonderful world! I've added more citations to address this. I suspect you were referring primarily to the section on group features and Campbell's theorising. If there are other sections I missed, please feel free to bump this again! Andrea Low (talk) 14:28, 1 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Andrea Low, it is looking much better! There are still some sentences which are un-cited though, here are some:

• This empirical evidence indicates that while homogeneity and entitativity are related, they are distinct in their impact on group perception.
• Among these three types of antecedents to entitativity, the qualities of groups that contribute to perceptions of entitativity have received the most attention.
• These findings indicate that when group members exhibit commonalities in physical or psychological attributes, they are more likely to be seen as forming a cohesive, meaningful unit.

Either these are uncited, or you put the citation earlier in the paragraph (which is what I suspect to be the case). As a general rule, you should cite the information after it has been stated, so the reader can easily see what citation corresponds to what text. It is a wonderful world (talk) 20:30, 1 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi @It is a wonderful world, thanks for clarifying! I've added citations to the end of every paragraph now so there are no end sentences without sources :) Andrea Low (talk) 15:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Awesome! Now it appears that everything is cited, so on the surface it looks to satisfy criterion 2b. Later, during the source spot check, I will verify that the sources do actually support the text.

I will continue with the review this evening. It is a wonderful world (talk) 18:59, 2 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

At the bottom of the review I added a suggestion that would significantly improve the formatting of the sources, but it is not required for GA. It is a wonderful world (talk) 13:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Here are some formatting improvements which are required for GA:

The "References" section is entirely redundant as it currently only repeats the information in the "Citations" section. It is a wonderful world (talk) 13:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Agreed! This was a holdover from before I started edits, but I've removed this section now Andrea Low (talk) 18:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I will ahead and improved the metadata on the citations, which mostly consisted of:

• Linking publishers and journals
• Adding access information
• Adding databases
• Adding URLs for the books

It is a wonderful world (talk) 13:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Although this article generally lacks references as mentioned above, the quality of the sources it does have is extremely good. It is a wonderful world (talk) 13:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

[3, 6, 7, 9, 17, 19, 20, 25, 27, 31, 45, 50, 52, 54, 55]: Books from reliable publishers such as Wiley-Blackwell, Sage Publishing and Oxford University Press. It is a wonderful world (talk) 13:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

My only concern was [56], which has not been published and therefore has probably not undergone traditional peer review, but Google Scholar shows it has been cited by several papers from reliable journals. It is a wonderful world (talk) 13:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

The rest of the sources are all from reliable peer reviewed journals. It is a wonderful world (talk) 13:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I will take another look at the added sources once the article meets criterion 2b, and if there are no issues I will pass on reliability. It is a wonderful world (talk) 13:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I will do the spot check after the additional sources have been added. It is a wonderful world (talk) 13:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Earwig's copyvio detector finds no copyright violations or too close paraphrasing which is a really good sign. I will check for any other violations on the source spot check. It is a wonderful world (talk) 13:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

The following points are not needed for GA promotion, but can be used to improve the article further or are tips for improving your writing.

References [1-18] are used multiple times, with page ranges rather than specific page numbers. This is not a problem for meeting the GA criteria, but it is a massive inconvenience for the reader who wants to verify the information, as it means they much check the entire page range to verify the content.

A better solution would be to have each citation pointing to an individual page, or narrow page range which makes it easier for the reader. Wikimedia is currently working on a way to make this very easy to do in the visual editor, but for now, the established workaround is to use Template:sfn, for example see the featured article on Cleopatra.

It's a little finicky learning how to do this for the first time, but it significantly improves the verifiability of the article. It is a wonderful world (talk) 13:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Dropping in on this review to suggest Template:Reference page as an alternative. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 21:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is really helpful, thank you! Andrea Low (talk) 22:55, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Andrea Low, unfortunately I have to close this due to inactivity. Thank you for your work on this article, and if you ever have the time to address the points above and nominate for GA again, please ping me and I would be happy to review! IAWW (talk) 12:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)Reply