Talk:Macrosociology

Macrosociology was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 22, 2008	Good article nominee	Not listed

This article was the subject of an educational assignment that ended on July 2008. Further details are available here.

The stylistics

At the invitation of The Prokonsul, I had a look here. I see issues:

with the placement of the inline citations (no, I won't explain)
with structuring (no, I won't explain that, either)
with lack of links out, which would put it on the Dead-end or Orphaned pages, & earn a {{deadend}} &/or {{orphaned}} tag. Test it at "What links here". (I confess, I don't know the criteria for "deadend", 'cause i've seen stubs tagged that would be nothing but linkfarms if more were added.) (no, I won't explain that, either)
with sparsity of content (but it's a stub, that's to be expected)

In general, this is the second best effort (structurally) in your project I've seen; Technophobia positively excels. It's close to WP norms & seems to cover the subject; it's sourced; it links to related content. I find the language a bit abstruse, but that's a judgment for somebody who knows far more sociology than me. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 19:28 & 19:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

This article does not meet the Good article criteria and has therefore failed. Issues include:

The article is marked as a stub, which means that it can still be expanded. This leads me to believe that it is not comprehensive enough.
WP:LAYOUT: "See also" goes before "References"
The article is poorly organized. For instance, shouldn't bullet points be used in "Theoretical Strategies"? Also, why are there sometimes two line breaks instead of one between paragraphs?
Per WP:MOS, please do not capitalize every word in a section's title (unless it is a proper noun)

Gary King (talk) 00:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some more comments are below:

The examples and "Important representatives of macrosociological theories" in the lead should be moved to the body because they are not mentioned elsewhere. The lead should only be used to summarize what already exists in the article's body, per WP:LEAD.
For the numbered list in "Aspects of Macro-Sociological Methodology" please use the # notation to create numbered lists, like:

# Item one
# Item two
# Item three

Bold formatting should be used sparingly in the article; it should only be reserved for the lead unless in special cases, per MOS:BOLD.

Gary King (talk) 01:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional review avenue

You may want to consider Wikipedia:Peer review to attract more reviewers.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Automated review

You may find the below suggestions useful._{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.^[?]
Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.^[?]
This article has no or few images. Please see if there are any free use images that fall under the Wikipedia:Image use policy and fit under one of the Wikipedia:Image copyright tags that can be uploaded. To upload images on Wikipedia, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload.^[?]
If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.^[?]
You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. ^[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.^[?]
Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.^[?]
There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
- it has been
- might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please ~~strike~~ this comment).^[?]
Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks,

End of assignment: summary

I want to thank all editors who have contributed to this article, either by editing it or by reviewing it and offering help on this talk page. While the article has fallen short of the Good Article criteria, it has been obviously significantly improved, moving from stub/start class to solid C or even B class. Compare: before, after, diffs.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Underrepresented

This article lacks a lot of information, all the sections should have more in depth information. There should be further explanation of the sociologists that have contributed to Macrosociology. Also, there should be more citations that show where you got the content. Lastly, there are some sentences that need more clarification. Stoepp19 (talk) 15:53, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]