Template:Did you know nominations/The Nature of Prejudice
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:18, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
The Nature of Prejudice
[edit]- ... that the 1954 book The Nature of Prejudice by Gordon Allport is considered a seminal work on prejudice? Source: https://books.google.com/books?id=CDSyHPt98E0
- Reviewed: Greg Fitzgerald
Created by Piotrus (talk). Self-nominated at 11:25, 2 October 2018 (UTC).
-- there is work to do here. For starters, it would be nice to have sections. And the book cover. Second, it needs a copy edit; I made a few obvious ones, but I note that the third paragraph starts with a grammatical error. In the second note the book title needs to be italicized; etc. Oh, the claim in the last sentence needs to be ascribed to someone; we can't be saying it I suppose a summary of the book isn't mandatory, but it would be nice--it's what we expect from a book article. Now, the hook is verified, the article is new enough and long enough and I smell no plagiarism, but it needs serious cleanup. Drmies (talk) 21:56, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
- Why I don't disagree with you, the issues you are raising are IMHO irrelevant to the DYK (now, if this was a WP:GAN, you'd be dead right). Quality issues like this are not part of the DYK requirements. I am of course happy if people would like to expand things, but I don't believe it is necessary. Btw, I don't see the grammar error. Also, I don't see the need for attribution (the sentence is cited, after all). Lastly, academic books don't have plot summary sections, the content of the book is already summarized. I guess we could add a chapter list? PS. I did add an infobox (through again, it is not required for a DYK; it's not like I am self-assessing this article any higher than start, maybe C-class...). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:35, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
- Piotrus, we've danced this dance before. I'm happy you wrote this up, it's important, but if we're putting it on the front page it should be representative of our quality. The grammar error is in "Describing the book significance"--needs to have a genitive for "book". I didn't say "plot summary", I said summary, and the only thing the article says about the book is the one sentence about some scale. The rest is all caught up inside reviewers' remarks. Having a summary is a Good Thing. I don't care about the infobox, BTW, though lots of people do. And the attribution, that is necessary. That it's cited is beside the point: what matters is that an opinion is cited ("One of the reasons for its success"), and it may be a very reasonable and well-argued opinion, but it's not a fact. Thus, attribution. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:16, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
- Drmies Yes, we danced this indeed, and as I am sure I said it before, your standards are too high for DYK. If you see a grammar error, please fix it. I am not a native speaker and occasionally I don't see them. I stand by what I said - all your other requests, while all beneficial to the article (except the attribution, which I say is not needed through harmless) are not required for this to be on the front page. If you have a problem with that, try changing DYK requirements/guidelines. Ping User:BlueMoonset for 3O. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:34, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
- Well, I am not a native speaker either, and I'm not your copyeditor. Yngvadottir, thank you so much for looking over the article, and for the attribution--which of course is necessary, given NPOV. Good day Piotrus. Drmies (talk) 13:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
- Drmies Yes, we danced this indeed, and as I am sure I said it before, your standards are too high for DYK. If you see a grammar error, please fix it. I am not a native speaker and occasionally I don't see them. I stand by what I said - all your other requests, while all beneficial to the article (except the attribution, which I say is not needed through harmless) are not required for this to be on the front page. If you have a problem with that, try changing DYK requirements/guidelines. Ping User:BlueMoonset for 3O. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:34, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Full review needed; check should include whether the article still needs a copy edit. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:30, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
- I looked, and don't think we can have a book article not saying (besides the lead which should be a summary) who wrote it when and why and about what. All reviews are interesting only in relation to that. - Formally, under a section header, a person's name should be repeated, so probably also a book's. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:30, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
- Added a sentence on author/date in the main body. I don't recall any source discussing why the author chose this topic, I am afraid. (Probably he found in interesting, like most authors writing about whatever they chose...). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:36, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
- I looked, and don't think we can have a book article not saying (besides the lead which should be a summary) who wrote it when and why and about what. All reviews are interesting only in relation to that. - Formally, under a section header, a person's name should be repeated, so probably also a book's. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:30, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
There is work to do here.
- Article creation date and length are appropriate.
- The hook has issues. "Is considered a seminal work on prejudice" seems weasel-worded despite the citation. The hook should describe who viewed the book as seminal. Aspects of the book's content would make an even better hook, since they are more obviously neutral.
- The article's sources are reliable, but its neutrality has issues. Please clarify using reliable sources that the book was universally acclaimed from its publication, or describe major disagreements with and shortcomings of the book.
- Finally, please report your QPQ.
La comadreja formerly AFriedman RESEARCH (talk) 04:02, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
- @La comadreja: QPQ is already out there. I don't see the what is a neutrality issue. ALL reviews I've found are positive, and praise this work highly. I'd be happy to include critical reviews - if you could only point them out to me? I think given the level of praise cited, seminal is fine, but if you'd prefer, here is an alt:
- ALT1: ... that the 1954 book The Nature of Prejudice is considered a classic that defined the field of intergroup relations?
- It should also address the issue of saying more about the book contents through its link to intergroup relations.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:30, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
- How about a slightly different wording: ... that the 1954 book The Nature of Prejudice is considered by social psychologists to have defined the field of intergroup relations? --La comadreja formerly AFriedman RESEARCH (talk) 17:08, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
- @La comadreja: Hmmm. The thing is, I am reasonably sure people from other branches of social sciences would also consider it as such. That said, I checked and both Pettigrew and Katz seem to be social psychologists as is Laurie A. Rudman. Dovidio is, however, in a department of psychology (not just social). Glick's official title is just a professor of social sciences ([1]) through of course sp is a major area of his expertise. I am not opposed to your proposed change, but I do want to caution you that the hook as proposed, while linking to social psychology (which is nice), could also be creating the false impression that the book is not recognized as important outside this narrow field. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:49, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
- Sure. How about ... that the 1954 social psychology book The Nature of Prejudice defined the field of intergroup relations?
- Nice, do you think we can add the word classic? Consider ALT2: --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:55, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- Sure. How about ... that the 1954 social psychology book The Nature of Prejudice defined the field of intergroup relations?
- @La comadreja: Hmmm. The thing is, I am reasonably sure people from other branches of social sciences would also consider it as such. That said, I checked and both Pettigrew and Katz seem to be social psychologists as is Laurie A. Rudman. Dovidio is, however, in a department of psychology (not just social). Glick's official title is just a professor of social sciences ([1]) through of course sp is a major area of his expertise. I am not opposed to your proposed change, but I do want to caution you that the hook as proposed, while linking to social psychology (which is nice), could also be creating the false impression that the book is not recognized as important outside this narrow field. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:49, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
- How about a slightly different wording: ... that the 1954 book The Nature of Prejudice is considered by social psychologists to have defined the field of intergroup relations? --La comadreja formerly AFriedman RESEARCH (talk) 17:08, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
- ALT2: ... that the 1954 social psychology book The Nature of Prejudice is considered a classic that defined the field of intergroup relations?
- @La comadreja: QPQ is already out there. I don't see the what is a neutrality issue. ALL reviews I've found are positive, and praise this work highly. I'd be happy to include critical reviews - if you could only point them out to me? I think given the level of praise cited, seminal is fine, but if you'd prefer, here is an alt:
- Reviewer hasn't edited since last month. New reviewer requested to take over. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
As the nomination has been stuck for a very long time and the only issue is really the hook, I'll be reviewing the hook. It's interesting, composed of two statements in the article. I can't access the source for either hook fact so I will assume good faith here. In any case, ALT2 itself seems good to go (rest of the review per La comadreja), but I could suggest another tweak to it (in that the hook could also be worded as something along the likes of "that was said to have defined the field...". Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:20, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
