This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Community Tech bot (talk | contribs) at 23:02, 9 June 2019 (Files used on this page are up for deletion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 23:02, 9 June 2019 by Community Tech bot (talk | contribs) (Files used on this page are up for deletion)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Archives (Index) |
|
This page is archived by ClueBot III. |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 May 2019 and 5 August 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Claudia Diaz2 (article contribs).
Lack of References and Information
Hello all, I was asked to critique this article for my class and these are my findings (as can also be found in my sandbox:
Looking at the references and citations, not every fact has been noted with a citation or reference; some lines explicitly saying that a citation is needed. Looking at the references themselves, many are older, with the latest reference coming from a book published in 2008. One source is from 1928 while a couple are missing publishing dates all together as well as links or other key information that would validate the quality of the source. The section with the least citations is "Applications". Most information given needs citations, there is wording such as "A famous..." and "...extensive evidence..." with no sources or examples to back such claims. One line of fact given, is cited incorrectly all together. In all, only three lines are cited in this section, two of which are books that lack links to retrieve verification and all three were published at 14 years ago or more. When reading the article, one thing that stood out were the number, placement and quality of examples. Even though there is an entire section devoted to stories that revolve around the Self-fulfilling Prophecy there is a long example given under "History". There is only one, poorly cited example under "Sports" and an vague and general example for "Stereotypes" involving politics that is only two lines long. The majority of the examples are under "Literature, media, and the arts". Most of these stories were very drawn out, repetitive and go into great detail about the story. There are a couple examples are not explained whatsoever.
Hopefully we can find a way to better the citations and examples used in this article and try to validate the information that has already been given. ChyTC (talk) 04:57, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
There are not enough references to each fact that are both reliable and relatable to the individual fact. For example, "In Canadian hockey, junior league players are selected based on skill, motor coordination, physical maturity, and other individual merit criteria." Where did this statistic come from and how reliable is it? Also, according to whom did the following take place? "Merton took the concept a step further and applied it to recent social phenomena." There needs to be clarification as to where this information came from. Where is this "extensive evidence"? "There is extensive evidence of "Interpersonal Expectation Effects" where the seemingly private expectations of individuals can predict the outcome of the world around them." There is a lack of information as to what the "extensive evidence" is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RachaelCalvin (talk • contribs) 01:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Good writing, however many facts did not have a proper reference or citation Helenamcharles (talk) 00:32, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Lack of Cites, Irrelevant Info, and Direct Quotes
There are many different citations missing from different parts of the article.. It directly from different articles several times, for example the 1948 . Doesn't have enough evidence to support the statement that self-fulfilling prophecy stems from Merton's theorem. Goes out of topic talking about economic theories and models. Give conclusion on how to break the prophecy cycle, but Misplaced Pages is about facts not how to's. Directly quotes from Karl Popper article. Goes way off topic giving too many examples(over presented) of where self fulfilling prophecies can be found in literature. The Canadian Hockey reference is irrelevant, and just confuses or distracts from giving facts of what a self fulfilling prophecy is.Ordoneznx (talk) 01:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC) would be good to include a citation in first paragraph regarding "Ancient Greece and ancient India..." Helenamcharles (talk) 00:33, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Missing citations
It is great to use so much information, but certain sections have no research to verify their information. Without a source it is hard to determine if the information is unbiased and correctly relayed. In the sections about Russia and India non e of this information ties back to a source. Without sources these sections can easily be labeled as false information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrebreT (talk • contribs) 03:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Lack of references and information
The majority of this article lacks citation, such as many of the paragraphs in the History of Concept and in the Literature, media, and the arts. Underneath the History of Concept, claims are made without the use of citations as well as the lack of references for quotes made. The text underneath this title needs to be completely supported as each subject and example provided requires a source. There is also the lack of evidence behind Robert K. Merton's accreditation as well as the "examples abound", "extensive evidence", and "famous example". No information is provided to clarify this. Many of the origin stories under Literature, media, and the arts also do not hold any citations as to how the stories connect with the topic. -T15311327 (talk) 20:13, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Issues with Language and Overall Appeal
One of the first and most prevalent issues that comes to mind when reading the article's summation of the concept is it's language. While generally written fairly well, the language feels some what too casual in certain portions of the lead, i.e. "In other words, a positive or negative prophecy..." Utilizing the phrase "in other words" here seems like the article is more akin to an essay that a college student or high school student would write, and while it works in the context of explaining the concept in essence, it adds a sense of informality that should not be seen quite often on an article discussing a sociological concept.
There are many other instances throughout the article that show this more casual/informal writing, and many instances could be fine but due to the lack of missing citations throughout the article make it difficult to apporiately judge what is actually a failed citation of a source. paraphrasing, and or original writing.
While information is there, and is written well enough, the obvious absence of citations make this article much more difficult to prove as credible and informative, and affect the overall look of the page and it's language. The addition of appropriate citations will benefit this page immensely and make it all the more appealing to readers and the website as a whole. Mckeandrp (talk) 14:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Lacking reliable information and proper citation.
The article clearly needs to provide citations for important information and refer data within the sentence. Additionally, there is evidence of plagiarism with the use of extensive in-text citation of original sources. Several parts are not relevant to the topic of the article such as the second paragraph in the "History of the concept" section and the "Sports" and "New Thought" sections. It is also lacking information and data in some parts such as the "Stereotype" and "Causal Loop" sections.Vsusy89 (talk) 20:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Lack of Citations and Vague Information
There is a great lack of citations in the article. Some of the information provided came off as vague. For example, at one point in the article the author states "A famous example includes..." What is the famous example? Who came up with that example? I also found the sports section to be irrelevant. That section tends to somewhat throw off the article. In addition, there were other effects in psychology mentioned that have nothing to do with the article and some assertions were made at the end of each portion of the literature section. Melindaelena (talk) 07:14, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Irrelevant Information and Biased Writing
Some information provided does not fully support the main topic of the article. The examples provided under the "Literature, Media, and The Arts" are redundant and excessive which makes them irrelevant. The section "Sports" creates unbalance with the "Literature, Media, and The Arts" section because they differ on the amount of information provided; furthermore, the topic of the article is not being covered by the "Sports" paragraph, so the Sports section could be discarded or joined to the "Literature, Media, and Sports" section.
The article also contains biased narration and personal opinions. For example, the statement of "is very common" denotes a personal opinion without support or reference in the "Stereotype" section of the article. In general, the lack of references make the article seem less reliable. YherChu (talk) 20:01, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Self-fulfilling prophecy. 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/20160304090328/http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/story.html?id=78fc94dd-c0b2-4ade-891d-98770bfae388&k=70777 to http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/story.html?id=78fc94dd-c0b2-4ade-891d-98770bfae388&k=70777
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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) 03:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Lack of reference and need more information
This article is missing references and needs more information. For example, under the Stereotype section, the articles fail in to give better definition and more examples. In my opinion, under the sports section needs a better explanation why Hockey is relative to the topic. Ivanubia (talk) 02:49, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Persia
@Dominic inquisitive: I noticed the new addition. My concern is that this appears to only cite the primary source. If you know of a source describing it as a self-fulfilling prophecy, a secondary source, please consider adding it. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 18:56, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
- @PaleoNeonate: Hello and thanks for the notification. I just thought the event fits the description of a self-fulfilling prophecy and so I included it. I am not aware of a source that describes it exactly as such, under these exact words, and for which I am convinced it's trustworthy enough.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dominic inquisitive (talk • contribs) 19:32, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
- As I don't personally find the material objectionable, I'll leave it for other editors to also assess. Let's see if it stands then. The reason to support it using another source is to avoid original research or synthesis (WP:OR, WP:SYNTH). Using a primary source alone and interpreting it ourselves is discouraged. (Note: I realize that you are a new editor; I have used the {{xsign}} template to attribute your above post; using four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your post would add your signature. Please see WP:TALK for more information on placing, indenting and signing posts.) Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 20:28, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Lack of reliable references or neutral sources, information out of date and missing facts.
I was told to make a critique article for the SPC1017 class.(This critique can also be located on my sandbox) This " Self-fulfilling prophecy" article presents few citations from non-reliable sources. Article's section History of the concept shows several times a lacking of proper citation. Also under the Application section, a gap in sourcing is presented, and it is not clear who said the information stated. There's missing material like incomplete examples in support of the topic. The used of non-neutral sources are visible putting in question the article's credibility. Most of the references are out of date. To improve the article, I suggest adding more examples from primary and neutral sources up to date that can complement the article's topic with adequate results. --Liz C Rodriguez (talk) 19:24, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
PBSC SPC 1017 Review on Self-fulfilling page
Overall, this page lacks proper citation, examples, reliable sources, and uses unreliable sources for some examples. There are gaps of information presented throughout the page. History of the concept needs additional citations for verification; there are claims that are not backed by reliable sources and missing citations. Under the application section, examples are missing, citations are missing, and evidence is not backed up by a reliable source/ don't have anything. Under the stereotype section, there appears to have a limited definition and examples. To improve the page it would be essential to add proper citations under the sections lacking, adding examples and removing filler words. Adding more sources from reliable and established sources to the page, some examples are out dated. --IvanFranco10 (talk) 20:46, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
SPC1017 PBSC Critique!
In this article, the introduction was a little confusing for me to comprehend completely. It seemed as if the wording and structure of the article was overwhelming and did not clearly explain what the self-fulfilling prophecy was right away. Maybe the concept itself went over my head and I did not seem to grasp what I was reading. When researching other definitions of this topic I was only able to understand it when I read multiple simple examples, however, it makes sense why providing examples that are nonspecific to the history of the definition wouldn't always be appropriate for defining a certain topic. With that being said, some other things I noticed in this article is the lack of citations and jumpiness in the history portion of the article. Sometimes during the article I felt very distracted by the buildup of information and couldn't see the connection between events and the topic. I believe simpler examples to explain this definition would help readers easily understand the topic. I enjoyed the different cultural aspects included in this article, however, it felt as if the addition of these examples somewhat strayed from the purpose of the article. While many of the hyperlinks in the article worked, the importance of having all of them fell short in my eyes considering many did not always focus on furthering the overall meaning of a self-fulling prophecy. All in all, watering down some of information and excluding irrelevant information might be something to consider to make the article easier to read and understand. Lelaina Lemire (talk) 15:57, 4 September 2018 (UTC)Lelaina Lemire SPC1017 PBSC
SPC1017 Critique
The Intro/lead of the article is unclear in the way it is written. There is also an issue with quotes being used and not cited. Certain links don't work or they're not the correct link. There's a banner under one of the sections that requires citations for proper verification. The way the article is written makes it sound more like an essay rather than an article for the general population. Sentences and paragraphs have components that seem like they were just copy/pasted onto the article and were not cited at all. Taylor D Henderson (talk) 23:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
SPC 1017 Critique.
While the overall focus of the article is maintained on the topic of "self-fulfilling prophecies," the lack of certain citations and the use of several biased sources hold back the article from becoming fully developed and realized. For example, in the "History of the concept" section, the usage of Merton's book as source presents a biased idea to the article, making it not very reliable. On top of that, some of the information used in the article has no importance to the overall main idea of the article, such as the "Sports" section. In my opinion, I feel as though that section should be cut completely. Aside from that, the article does come with good intention and uses fairly appropriate word choice. --Randy Abelenda (talk) 05:35, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
SPC 1017 Article Evaluation
Overall the article gives a good overview of the topic of a self-fulfilling prophecy. It gives good examples and provides multiple historical references and instances in where a self-fulfilling prophecy may have taken place. This helps to broaden and help make the topic easier the reader to understand. This is further enhanced by the article presenting some real world examples. However one such example struggles and that is the Canadian ice hockey section. While light connections can be drawn to the topic, the use of statistics to overall explain the completion of a prophecy doesn't seem to be relevant and more so leans towards the direction of someone looking at a trend line and making a prediction. In this instance, failure would have been viewed as the numbers being incorrect where as if they were right, a prophecy was fulfilled. This section is also fairly stagnant as only one sport is covered and that is Canadian hockey where outside of North America, this sport is fairly irrelevant and presents an example that the majority of the world would fail to understand. To improve this section, researching a more relevant example in sports such as the scouting prospects of high-school and college level athletes as they pursue a professional career would help and as well as presenting an example in a sport that has a bigger and more diverse audience. Jasonaperez7 (talk) 04:13, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Remarks and Corrections (SPC1017, 2019)
This article has a lot of repetition in the brief section, which would be more about defining the concept and maybe explaining how it is used, and a little bit of background such us, "Definition of concept. In what aspects it can be used/ is used: example: communication. "This concept has been recognized throughout time and was recently named by... in the year ...." or something similar but not too extensive, keeping the Misplaced Pages guidelines for the brief section. Then, minimizing the extensive information on the ways this concept has been used in different civilizations, focusing on essential information. Also, including more reliable sources and using classic literature or writings as examples, not "That's so Raven!". — Preceding unsigned comment added by MonicaCespedes (talk • contribs) 03:02, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Section on Stereotypes is too short
The section of the article dealing specifically with stereotype threats should contain more information on the subject. The two sentences could be incorporated into another section. The information given in the section is also very basic and doesn't give much detail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcarter10 (talk • contribs) 03:51, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Vague and Unorganized Information
This article itself does have some adequate information, however most of the information is too vague and does not have proper citations. As well as, the information itself is quite unorganized. With an addition of more credible references this article should be more valid
Raksha H (talk) 13:57, 23 January 2019 (UTC)RH
A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:02, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Categories:- All unassessed articles
- C-Class WikiProject Business articles
- Mid-importance WikiProject Business articles
- WikiProject Business articles
- C-Class Philosophy articles
- Mid-importance Philosophy articles
- C-Class metaphysics articles
- Mid-importance metaphysics articles
- Metaphysics task force articles
- C-Class logic articles
- Mid-importance logic articles
- Logic task force articles
- C-Class politics articles
- Mid-importance politics articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- C-Class science fiction articles
- Mid-importance science fiction articles
- WikiProject Science Fiction articles
- C-Class sociology articles
- Mid-importance sociology articles
- C-Class Time articles
- Mid-importance Time articles