This  level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Marketing & Advertising Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Marketing & Advertising, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Marketing 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.Marketing & AdvertisingWikipedia:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingTemplate:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingMarketing & Advertising Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. Neuroscience High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience 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.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Psychology High‑importance 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Philosophy: Epistemology / Social and political Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Epistemology Social and political philosophy

This article was selected as the article for improvement on 18 October 2021 for a period of one week.

Archives (Index)

2013 2014 2017 2020 2021 2022

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

seemingly same stuff fgnievinski (talk) 04:27, 31 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

I've redirected Personality style to Personality without a merge, as there wasn't really anything worth keeping that isn't already discussed here. --Xurizuri (talk) 06:58, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

That makes sense to me. SnailsSpace (talk) 16:42, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

The article could benefit from an organizational standpoint. The Introduction of the article mentions topics and subjects that arent talked about or expanded upon in the body of the article; it almost feels misleading.

I would also say tha swapping the first and 2nd paraphraph would make the paper feel stronger as a whole. Not only that, but there is a section called biology that makes sense to go first, and the history sectin to go last. That could just be personal preference, however, when it comes to writing articles or informational papers, it usually starts with the broadest topics and funnels from there.

I also think a this paper would benefit from a section on age and how young personality can be defined, as well as how personality changes throughout the stages of life. Moro430 (talk) 03:40, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

I agree with the comments on the introduction paragraph; it lists several psychologists who are not mentioned at all in the article: Sigmund Freud, Alfred Adler, Gordon Allport, Hans Eysenck, Abraham Maslow, and Carl Rogers. There are also no sources following these names. I think Freud should be given a mention in the History section, as his theory of the id, ego, and superego was among the first mentions of personality.^[1] Charlottercrane (talk) 06:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree, and I also feel that the article spends a great deal of time explaining personality tests that are only mentioned briefly later in the article. Briefly mentioning that tests are discussed later, without going into specifics right away would be a more focused approach.Dannyb37 (talk) 22:29, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

With the topic of Personology being mentioned I believe that adding the Thematic Apperception Test to the measuring category would be necessary. I also believe that the Biology and Developing Biological Model sections could be merged to help with conciseness. There is not much is said in the Biology section that could not also be said in the Developing Biological Model section.Avaught23001 (talk) 21:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC) Avaught23001 (talk) 21:06, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply