Talk:Social heuristics

Social heuristics has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: May 24, 2021. (Reviewed version).

Articles for creation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted on 23 November 2013 by reviewer Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs).

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

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 September 2020 and 14 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mwla20.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editing this page

Hello Wikipedia! I'll be working through some updates to this page over the next month as an assignment for a class. I'm planning to expand the explanations of the social heuristics hypothesis and other considerations about the origins of social heuristics, add to the discussion on bounded rationality and how social heuristics fit in with a dual-systems approach to cognition, and flesh out the examples. This is my first time editing on Wikipedia, so please feel free to provide any feedback or advice. Thanks! Mwla20 (talk) 20:57, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wikipedia! I just copied over my edits and additions from my sandbox, and did a bit of re-organizing of the page. The additions were mostly pasted from my sandbox User:Mwla20/sandbox - I apologize that I did not include that link in my edit summaries while I was doing it. Like I said above, this is my first time editing here on Wikipedia, so I look forward to any feedback on my additions and restructuring of the page. Thanks! Mwla20 (talk) 02:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Yoninah (talk) 00:08, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not a 5x expansion

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that social heuristics may explain the tendency to cooperate intuitively with others? Source: Rand et al (2014). "Social heuristics shape intuitive cooperation"

5x expanded by Mwla20 (talk). Self-nominated at 02:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Note: Nominator is a WikiEd student editor — Maile (talk) 02:38, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Nominator is a WikiEd student editor for the Fall 2020 term at UCLA. (course link) The course ends on December 15, 2020.

Mwla20, articles need to be expanded fivefold, and this one, while it is expanded significantly, still has quite a ways to go. The article was 2168 prose characters before you started your expansion, and would need to attain 10870 prose characters in order to qualify as a 5x expansion. At the moment, it's about 3x, with 6475 prose characters. If you are able to add another 4395 prose characters, about the amount that you've added so far, the article would qualify lengthwise and can be reviewed further. Without that, I'm afraid it doesn't make it. Best of luck, and please keep us informed of your progress and plans. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:44, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BlueMoonset, Thank you for your review - I understand and will look into expanding further, or re-submitting for DYK if the article achieves good article status. I appreciate your feedback! Mwla20 (talk) 19:13, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator hasn't edited since December 14, and the course has ended. A 5x expansion was also not accomplished in time. As such, the nomination is regretfully marked for closure as unsuccessful. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:30, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA nomination

Thanks for your work on this article! I've removed the tag because I don't think it is ready for GA review yet. Unfortunately, there is still quite a bit of content in the article where it is not clear what the source is, failing the verifiability requirement. Once that is addressed, the GA nomination can be restored. (t · c) buidhe 02:50, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review and your notes, User:buidhe. I have added citations where noted in the body of the article, and will resubmit! Mwla20 (talk) 03:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 18:39, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm opening a Good Article Nomination review. Hoping to complete the review over the next couple of days. I'll be using the template below. Thanks! Ganesha811 (talk) 18:39, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ganesha811: The nominator (who edited for a college class that has since ended) hasn't edited since December, so you might want to make sure they're still available before you put too much time into this review. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:45, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extraordinary Writ, thanks, I'll drop a note on their talk page. Ganesha811 (talk) 19:05, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ganesha811. Although this is not my field of specialization, I am interested in sociology. I will be available to address your points, should the original nominator not respond. — The Most Comfortable Chair 11:06, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Most Comfortable Chair, thanks! The original nominator has confirmed that they're active and should be around, but I appreciate the offer. Ganesha811 (talk) 01:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mwla20, I've wrapped up my first run-through of the GA review. Please take a look - overall, it's in a good place, but there are a few issues to address/changes to be made. Thanks! Ganesha811 (talk) 13:16, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mwla20 - hi! I hope that you will see this message and be able to respond to some comments on the GA review. If not, in a couple days, I'll ask another editor to step in and work with me. Hopefully we can get the article to GA status one way or the other. Ganesha811 (talk) 14:11, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mwla20, any updates? You'd mentioned you will hopefully have time to edit the article soon. Thanks! Ganesha811 (talk) 19:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ganesha811! I updated the lead a bit to make sure the definition of a heuristic was clear. I also defined the term "agent" in the examples section - good catch on that! I was able to find one academic paper about cross-cultural variation related to the social heuristics hypothesis, and another about social roles, but if there were other specific sources you had in mind for these topics let me know. Additionally, I wasn't able to find anything about why people might override social heuristics when looking on GoogleScholar (maybe what you were seeing was about heuristics in general?). If you have a link for that I'm happy to check that out! Thanks so much for your thoughtful review!! Mwla20 (talk) 01:01, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mwla20, thank you! I'll take another look and see if I can dig up some of those links. Ganesha811 (talk) 23:52, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	In general this is a well-written article, but I do have a few prose concerns. The term "agent" is used without explanation, which would be confusing for someone who doesn't know the field. The first time it is used, it should be linked to a relevant other page (if one exists) and defined parenthetically. Similarly the term 'heuristic' should be briefly defined in the lead. It would be great if you wanted to go through this in general with the view of someone who has never heard of this concept before and has no idea of what the academic context is. To expand on this, I think this is the biggest issue for the article right now. A good pass with the view to making this an article suitable for someone learning about the subject for the first time, and we'll just about be there. Issues addressed, pass.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	No issues here. Pass.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Pass, no issues here.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Almost all academic sources from reliable journals. Pass. Ganesha811 (talk) 01:39, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
	2c. it contains no original research.	Check through and comparison to sources doesn't show any original research, or inappropriate synthesis. Pass.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No violations found by Earwig or manual spot check.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	While the article covers the basics of what a social heuristic is and gives some good examples, I'm not sure it's comprehensive. I'm seeing some academic work on how heuristics vary between cultures, why people sometimes choose to override heuristics, and how differing social roles may affect the heuristics we use. It would be great to add some information, maybe just a couple sentences each, on these topics. Issue largely addressed, pass.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Pass. Level of detail is good.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No neutrality issues found. Pass.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit wars or rapid expansion. Pass.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	No issues. Pass.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	No issues. Note: it would be good if there was a simple graphic or something like that for the lead, demonstrating visually what a social heuristic is. I completely understand if no such thing exists in the public domain, however. Pass.
	7. Overall assessment.