Talk:Naïve realism (psychology)

Naïve realism (psychology) was a Social sciences and society 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
December 3, 2015	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
January 17, 2016	Good article nominee	Not listed

Current status: Former good article nominee

Psychology Mid‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Expanding Stub[edit]

Hi, all. I wanted to give a heads up that as part of the WikiProject Psychology, I will be working to expand this page over the next few weeks by adding in sources, background and theory. Mcooperwhite (talk) 06:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright issue[edit]

I would like to have a discussion regarding the copyright issue on this page. The copyrighted text has been on the page since it was first created in 2012. While expanding the stub, I left it in (in block quotes and with attribution) under these copyright assumptions from Wikipedia: "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. In all cases, an inline citation following the quote or the sentence where it is used is required. Copyrighted text that is used verbatim must be attributed with quotation marks or other standard notation, such as block quotes. Any alterations must be clearly marked, i.e., [brackets] for added text, an ellipsis (...) for removed text, and emphasis noted after the quotation as "(emphasis added)" or "(emphasis in the original)".

I am happy to change the text, if need be, but would like to know what editors think is the best way to proceed. Thanks! Mcooperwhite (talk) 18:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mcooperwhite: You're quite right - this quote was there long before you edited the article. It began as an overly-long quotation which gradually lost its quote box. I removed it, and hopefully between the edits to the article and the discussion here, we don't need to fiddle with the article history. Graham Beards is that ok with you?

Moving forward, Mcooperwhite, I would recommend that if you want those "tenets" in that article that you re-write the information therein in your own words, being careful to avoid close paraphrasing. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is nothing sacred about the wording and it should be recast; as it stood the text was too long to justify a quote. With regard to the text in question being on the page since 2012, often on Wikipedia problems of copyright only come to light when the article is nominated for promotion as was the case here. On this note, it is considered bad form to nominate an article at FAC and not respond quickly to reviewers' concerns. I suggest that the FAC nomination is withdrawn as premature, and we concentrate on eradicating the copyvio and other potential close-paraphrasing from the article. @Mcooperwhite: please do take this personally, and I thank you for all the work you done to improve the article. Lastly, it is not possible to "fiddle with the article history"; it will be there for as least as long as Wikipedia is around. Personally, I would love to see the Tenets re-written in a language that is easier for a lay person to understand. I know from experience that this is rife with difficulties; but please have a go. Best wishes. Graham Beards (talk) 22:31, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moving forward, I will re-write the information about the "tenets," as discussed, in a way that is more accessible (and is not close paraphrasing). Also, I have withdrawn the FAC nomination for now. Thank you, @GrahamBeards: and @Ian (Wiki Ed):! Mcooperwhite (talk) 02:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been updated with assumptions. Some of the text has been rewritten in a more encyclopedic tone. Section about hostile media effect has been reworded. New version of article submitted for GAN.Mcooperwhite (talk) 05:24, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Naïve realism (psychology)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Delldot (talk · contribs) 22:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will give this article a review. @Mcooperwhite: are you still around and willing to respond to a bunch of suggestions? If so I'll go ahead and give this a thorough review. delldot ∇. 22:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first comment I have is I think it needs more referencing. I can go through and mark where if you like, but at a minimum each paragraph needs a citation at the end. (If a citation within the para covers the rest of the info, just cite it again. That way if the info gets moved or other info inserted, we still have the citation). I'm gonna leave off for now until I hear back from you, but looking forward to hearing from you! delldot ∇. 22:54, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it's been a couple weeks, no word from the nom. I'll fail this for now and perhaps it can be nominated again later if there's someone willing to keep working on it. delldot ∇. 03:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://web.mit.edu/curhan/www/docs/Articles/15341_Readings/Negotiation_and_Conflict_Management/Ross_Ward_Naive_Realism.pdf. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm wrong in thinking that this has been fully dealt with now, please ping me here. Thanks to those who recognised and addressed the problem! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]