Content deleted Content added
EdJohnston (talk | contribs) m EdJohnston moved page Talk:Structuration/Archive 1 to Talk:Structuration theory/Archive 1: Per move discussion. Target contains no edits that need to be preserved |
m Archiving 2 discussion(s) from Talk:Structuration theory) (bot |
||
Line 46:
For the "Help me" tag, I'm looking for general feedback re: usability, readability, copyediting–anything that could be used to improve the article! Thank you! [[User:Mjscheer|Mjscheer]] ([[User talk:Mjscheer|talk]]) 07:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
:I'm deactivating this help request, as it is now superfluous to the RFC below. Thank you for requesting input, and thank you for your work on the article. <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#000;">[[User:Begoon|<span style="color:#0645AD;">Begoon</span>]] [[User talk:Begoon|<span style="color:gray;"><sup>talk</sup></span>]]</span> 22:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
== Formal request for feedback ==
Looking for feedback on accuracy, readability, comprehensiveness, and any suggestions or comments on changes that have been made or ways the article could be improved! [[User:Mjscheer|Mjscheer]] ([[User talk:Mjscheer|talk]]) 19:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
== Request for feedback outside of the formal RFF above ==
Hello! My name is MJ. Recently, I have made some large-scale changes to the Structuration page: reformatting the entire page by taking out entire sections (i.e., "Basic assumptions"), integrating new sections ("Criticisms and additions to structuration theory" and "Methodology"), and rewriting most of the content. I did not intend to remove anything that previous authors considered critical to the theory, though I may have done so unintentionally. I am a new editor in Wikipedia, and I hope to inspire a discussion about what could be done to improve the clarity, comprehensiveness, and/or usefulness of the content and structure of the page. As you can see, I have made a formal request for feedback, but I have also read much about the inefficiency/ineffectiveness associated with the a RFF (no offense, any administrators!). I wanted to give anyone who wants to comment on the article a chance to do so easily. I've been very inspired by the dialogues that I have seen on Wikipedia thus far and hope that other (more experienced! or not experienced at all! either way!) editors will engage in discussion about the content of the page either through the RFF above or through the discussion space provided below. Thanks for your time and suggestions! [[User:Mjscheer|Mjscheer]] ([[User talk:Mjscheer|talk]]) 06:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
:Hello again MJ. You're right, you often have to poke people. It can take years before they come along, especially on a specialised topic. As I said before I think it's a great rewrite. I'd like to see some mention of the feminist critique (see eg {{ISBN|052126197X}}), and undoubtedly others will find endless things to improve, link, format, standardise, and so on, but I don't really have much more to add. It covers the ground well. One thing I can't help thinking though, the wider obvious context with structure and agency in Habermas and Bourdieu is possibly undermentioned in the article, IMO. It might be out of scope, but then I don't really have the time right now to do much about it. Good luck. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] <sup>[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]</sup> 11:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
::Thanks for your feedback, [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]]. You've been really helpful, and extremely nice. I don't have any experience with the feminist critique of structuration theory, but thank you for bringing it to my attention! I hope to get to it at some point. As for Habermas & Bourdieu, those are really great ideas and I put some links in the article. Thanks again! [[User:Mjscheer|Mjscheer]] ([[User talk:Mjscheer|talk]]) 16:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
:Thank you, MJ! Very good overview of Giddens. I've upped the class of the article to "B" for Sociology. The language is a bit tough to wade through in places. I'd be happy to do a bit of copy editing to clarify some language; I have no substantive comments at the moment. [[User:Meclee|Meclee]] ([[User talk:Meclee|talk]]) 14:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
::Thanks for your encouraging words, [[User:Meclee|Meclee]]! By any chance, do you remember what the article was rated before? I agree the language is pretty gnarly. I've done the best I can for now! As a sidenote, relating to the GA discussion below, I've fixed the citations, added some clarifying language, and expanded the scope a little bit. Thanks for your help! [[User:Mjscheer|Mjscheer]] ([[User talk:Mjscheer|talk]]) 16:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
::MJ, The article was previously rated 'start class'. Thank you for the additional work. I will now recommend the article for GA status. Best wishes. [[User:Meclee|Meclee]] ([[User talk:Meclee|talk]]) 23:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I wanted to major in philosophy but can't really handle college right now. I've completed about 3 or 4 semesters do far. That being said, for someone that hasn't really taken a philosophy class but has an interest in it, it's very difficult for me to read this. There needs to either blue links to other pages for theories or philosophical terms, or the ability to understand terms by reading between the lines. I still have no idea what I was reading about. I think that this is probably a very interesting topic, and your professor probably understood everything you said, but encyclopedias need to be understood by the masses. Let me know if you need to know more of what I'm having trouble understanding. [[User:Thepoodlechef|Thepoodlechef]] ([[User talk:Thepoodlechef|talk]]) 19:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
{{Talk:Structuration/GA1}}
| |||