This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Psychology Mid‑importance This redirect 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 redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The banner about "multiple issues" might sound harsher than it actually is. These all sound like changes that can be made, and I am confident you will make them relatively quickly. William Fleeson (talk) 01:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that merging this section with Big Five personality traits might make sense given that this article is talking about the change in the Big Five traits. However, I do not understand how merging with Big Five personality traits and culture will help, if that article might also be merged with Big Five personality traits. Desasu11 (talk) 00:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are supposed to take a ((global)) view anyway, and not just focus on North America or Western Europe. So it makes sense to combine different cultural findings. It would certainly add to the understanding of what these "Big Five traits" are actually measuring, or whether the findings are culture bound and can't be generalized to most of the humans in the world. MathewTownsend (talk) 01:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Desasu11, I think this article overall is very good! You cover a lot of material, and it is very accessible and does make sense to the reader (or at least this reader). One change I would suggest is that you should maybe discuss the two types of change first thing after the lead? I think it would help to give people a background in the way researchers examine change first, before discussing exactly what those changes are. However, this may be just because it's the first thing you mention in the lead after the definition, so I was just expecting it to come first - maybe you could just change the lead? :)

One other thing that kind of confused me was under the Influences heading; I can tell after reading the section that this part is discussing when change occurs versus when continuity occurs, but I couldn't tell that from reading the heading, or even just the first few sentences. Maybe a heading like "Change vs. Continuity" or something like that would help this section make more sense to me? And I kind of had the same problem with the Emergence heading; that section is about what CAUSES personality change, right? ...This might be just my unfamiliarity with the Developmental psychology literature? But I thought it might be useful for you to know that I was confused about where you were going as I read those sections.

But, overall, it seems like you have a good, readable overview of the topic! Nice work. :) Carps11 (talk) 14:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, great article, Desasu11 (talk · contribs)! I think this article contains important and relevant information to a better understanding of the ways personality changes over time. I think the article is written in an encyclopedic manner so I would remove that banner at the top as soon as you fix a few of the wikify issues. In regards to the other comment about needing to be wikified - I have a few comments on how I think you can address this issue:

• I think you could add a few more wikilinks throughout the article - this seems to be really important in Wikipedia so users who might not be familiar with the topic can get a little more background.
• I think it would help if you added to your lead section a little bit - you don't have to reinvent the wheel but if you just added a few more sentencing that provided a slightly more in-depth summary of your article. Wiki says the lead should "define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points".This page helped me out a lot. I think the only things on that list you need to work on are the lead and wiki links.
• When you're done "wikifying" then I think it would be totally reasonable for you to remove that banner at the top of your page!
• Also, it seems that Wiki likes the first sentence of the lead to be an explicit definition. I realize that's a little more difficult in this instance, but maybe give that a shot. Maybe aim for a sentence that would give a summary of your topic even if that was the only sentence someone read.
• I think it would be worth mentioning (maybe in the lead?) that this is an issue studied in the field of psychology - specifically personality psychology - and include wikilinks to those pages :)

More general comments: I thought this article gives a great background on the major issues involved with personality change over time. I thought your progression from one section to the next made a lot of logical sense. Your writing is very clear and easily understood. I think you approached this article from a NPOV and included some great sources to support your article. Overall, great job! My comments are mainly details about making it fit the Wiki mold. The content was great and I think it's really cool that all this cool info is now circulating the web! Great addition to Wiki! :) Majobc11 (talk) 15:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Wake Forest University supported by WikiProject Psychology and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from ((WAP assignment)) by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]