Wikipedia:Peer review/Interpretive science/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am interested in getting feedback on what needs improvement and how this (really short) article could be expanded.
Thanks, Novus Orator 09:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this article. I apologize my review has been slow - I have had some internet connection issues and lost a nealry complete reveiew. This is so short there is not a lot to comment on, but, here are some suggestions for improvement.
- The article needs to be expanded and once that happens it will need a lead section. Per WP:LEAD, the lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. As such, nNothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself.
- My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. I can see this having at least three sections on expansion: 1) a definition section with some concrete examples; 2) a history section; and 3) a criticism section
- The article needs to give the reader a clearer idea of what the theory involves. This could include the current definitions in the article and should also include some specific concrete examples of how it has been used in several disciplines
- The history would tell who introduced the theory, when and why. Where has it had its greatest successes? Is it more common in certain fields of study or certain countries or certain universities?
- The criticisms section would follow WP:NPOV and maintain a neutral point of view, but still present the positive and negative reaction to and criticism of the theory
- The external links tool in the tool box in the upper right corner finds one dead EL
- The quotes should not be italicized per WP:MOSQUOTE and WP:ITALIC
- The references need some work. First off, please make sure that the sources used are all reliable. What makes sociology.com a reliable source, for example? I was surprised that there were no books were used as sources and that it appeared that no journal articles were cited.
- Make sure that refs give full information - for example currrent ref 2 gives full citation information at the very bottom of the web page "Myers, M. D. "Qualitative Research in Information Systems," MIS Quarterly (21:2), June 1997, pp. 241-242. MISQ Discovery, archival version, June 1997, http://www.misq.org/discovery/MISQD_isworld/. MISQ Discovery, updated version, last modified: September 23, 2010 www.qual.auckland.ac.nz" The current ref in the article is just "Michael D. Myers. "Roots of Interpretive Research". Association for Information Systems. http://www.qual.auckland.ac.nz/. Retrieved 21 October 2010."
- The second quotation used is incorrectly cited (the article cites a source, but that source is quoting this material itself).
- I would link to Verstehen which seems related.
- I would explain how (if??) this theory can explain things like Chemistry and Physics and much of Biology (where the positivist model has been extraordinarily successful).
- None of the see alsos actually seem to discuss this theory in their articles - they link to it in their see also section (and Inforamtion theory does not link to it at all)
- Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches for more details
- In general peer review is for well developed articles - this is not, but I hope these suggestions are useful.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)