Talk:Positioning theory/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Larry Hockett (talk · contribs) 10:45, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to review this nomination. I notice that the article was nominated by a student editor who hasn't edited since the end of the fall term in December. If the nominator (or another interested editor) is available to respond to GA review feedback, please reply here. If there is no reply within a couple of weeks, I may close this nomination for the time being. Thanks! Larry Hockett (Talk) 10:45, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Larry Hockett. I can respond to your points if the original nominator is not around. Seems like there is at least one more nomination like this. — The Most Comfortable Chair 11:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect. Thank you. I will post some feedback this week. Larry Hockett (Talk) 11:30, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminaries

A few things to get out of the way: After a quick read, the article appears to be neutral and stable. Earwig's tool returns no significant copyright concerns (only flagging a few common phrases here and there). I'll proceed with some section-by-section initial feedback.

Lead section

Unless I am misunderstanding something, I don't think positioning theory brings about details of interactions. I think it more likely describes or characterizes such details.

That is correct. I have replaced most of the lead actually. I realized that it was not written in summary style, and it was basically an "overview" of the topic. Information in the lead was not mentioned in the article either, so I have moved its contents to an "Overview" section. — The Most Comfortable Chair 15:31, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"The opportunities for people to act depends" - opportunities depend

Changed.

"their own cognitive capabilities as well as that of" - as well as those of

Changed.

"Studies led by positioning theory have studied" - Researchers use theories to frame certain studies, but a theory doesn't lead a study; also rewrite to avoid redundancy (studies have studied)

Rewritten.

There is significant discussion of the work of Lev Vygotsky in the body of the article, so it would be good to mention him in the lead section.

Added.

Origin

"Rooting from gender studies" - a little awkward as written; try rooted in or originating from

Went with "originating".

Introduce Bronwyn Davies - psychologist, professor at _______, etc

Explained.

"Further work in polishing and developing positioning theory" - This may be out of place because we really haven't laid out the basics of positioning theory in the body of the article yet. For example, the reader doesn't know what these different types of positioning (or first and second order positions) are, so they can't appreciate any further work yet. In other words, tell us about the initial work before the further work.

I have renamed this to "History". I thought it worked better because it included later developments and current applications. I have copyedited parts of it and moved it towards the end of the article to address your point. Most articles on academic topics have their "History" section at the end or at least after they have described the topic. — The Most Comfortable Chair 15:31, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vygotsky and positioning theory

"consistent with Vygotskian approaches to learning and teaching" - Briefly, for the lay reader, what are Vygotskian approaches?
"having higher mental functioning was in accordance with an individual's social life." - Clarify what you mean here. Are we saying that having a rich social life increases one's mental capacity?

Clarified — let me know if there is something more to be done here. — The Most Comfortable Chair 08:38, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will stop here for now. Thanks. Larry Hockett (Talk) 15:57, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Individual and social attributes

This diagram - maybe "A diagram can be used to explain the social significance of positioning acts (see Figure 1)."

Changed.

Per MOS:EMPHASIS, underlining shouldn't be used for emphasis. You could consider using italics, but I think the point is clear even without the italics.

Removed.

"In sum, a position establishes what an individual is authorized to say in accordance with his/her position." - can leave out "in accordance with his/her position."

Removed.

"This action is identified under rules of accepted standards and moral behaviors with looking into the appropriate situation and actions that must come prior to the action performed as well as the consequences that will come about as a result of this action." - Let's figure out how to make this less wordy.
"It is important to note that the normative power" - Wikipedia avoids directly weighing in on subjective matters like importance.

Dropped.

they can use narratives or "storylines" - Why the use of quotation marks here but not with other uses of the same term?

Removed.

"comprises out of the possibilities" - not the right verb

I have used "is derived from" instead. Would you want to suggest something else? — The Most Comfortable Chair 04:37, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Types of positioning

The interactive positioning section is wordy. How about this: "A person or a group of people position another person based on what they say." Then leave out the next two sentences. When you talk about a storyline being transferred to another storyline, I'm not sure what you mean. Is there a good example of this that would clarify it? Note that in your earlier uses, storyline was one word, not two.

I went with your suggestion for the former, and elaborated on the text for the latter.

The example for reflexive positioning is too vague to really clarify the situation for me.

Added a detailed example.

In indirect positioning, I don't understand how the positioning prevents a person from correcting their cognitive performance or taking on meaningful tasks. People perceived as irresponsible still take on meaningful tasks. The example with Bush and the perception of the U.S. is the most clear to me.

I have tried to elaborate.

That's all for right now. I appreciate the work that has gone into this interesting entry so far. Larry Hockett (Talk) 16:50, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review. Since the original nominator does not seem to be around, I will get to it from tomorrow. — The Most Comfortable Chair 11:46, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the work you've already done on this. I think the hardest thing is going to be clarifying the use of jargon (first order, second order, subjectivity, storyline [seems to have basically two definitions provided]) that isn't so meaningful to the reader without a social psychology background. Larry Hockett (Talk) 05:19, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is something I noticed as well, which is why I could not address all your points yesterday. The article is a bit too academic at the moment, and it requires some simplifications. Allow me a couple of more days to work on that and I will get back to you. — The Most Comfortable Chair 06:06, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I still need to do this and I will start working on it from tomorrow. — The Most Comfortable Chair 15:31, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the detailed review, Larry Hockett. It helped me work on the article in a focused and specific manner. I have tried to simplify the text in places where I felt it had become too wordy. I have also made miscellaneous changes. Would you have another look at the article and let me know if there is more to be done? — The Most Comfortable Chair 10:24, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this great work. It looks to me like a lot of the jargon has been clarified. I have had a much busier week than anticipated, but I will take a look on Sunday and see if we might be able to wrap this up. Larry Hockett (Talk) 02:27, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A few questions

Thanks for the continued work on this article. I did some light copyediting on the entry, but I ran into a few uncertainties that I couldn't resolve through copyediting.

Overview section, 2nd para, "These studies specifically look at the position ..." - I think this sentence might be missing a word. or maybe the words are not in the best order. I can't figure out how rights and duties relate to the beginning of the sentence. Is there an easier way to explain it?

Clarified.

Under Relation to Lev Vygotsky's theories, do we need a subheading for the context of education? It sounds like you're actually getting into that at least one sentence before the new subheading anyway.

Removed the heading — Good point. I was not sure about it myself, but I kept it in place since the original nominator added it. It is more logical to not give that a sub-section of its own.

In the Speech and other acts subsection, "This action is identified under ..." - I find myself losing track of this sentence because it is too long. Two or three sentences might be better to ensure clarity.

Broken down into three sentences and simplified.

Same subsection: I don't think the lay reader will be able to relate to "The normative power of speech acts is not causal."

To be honest, I have no idea what that means. I have read its source paper thrice and I still cannot understand it well. Reading sociology is just a hobby of mine and my profession is quite unrelated. I have substituted that sentence with what I could gather from that source material instead.

I think we are pretty much there once these are resolved. Larry Hockett (Talk) 05:46, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your copyedits and involvement with the article. It would not have gotten to this point without your help and diligent review. — The Most Comfortable Chair 07:12, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also wanted to notify you about a discussion I had regarding copyrights of one of the images in the article on Eddie891's talk page. — The Most Comfortable Chair 05:02, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. While I tend to evaluate the text for copyvio early in a review, I usually don't check images until the very end, so your message saves us all some last-minute stress. I agree with the thought that the image does not cross the threshold of originality; it is a simple geometric shape with some plain text next to each corner.

I am going to make a quick copyediting run through the entry, and I anticipate passing this shortly unless I run across something I can't resolve. Larry Hockett (Talk) 05:28, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the work. I ran into a couple of edit conflicts last night, but I am going to pass it now.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

I appreciate the work of User:The Most Comfortable Chair for helping to get the entry through the nomination process.

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
A few writing issues were addressed during the review process.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
References support the article content. Earwig's tool and search engines don't turn up any concern for copyvio.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Images either have appropriate tags or do not rise to the threshold of originality.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Passing this now. Good work. Larry Hockett (Talk) 15:50, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]