Talk:Susan Fiske

message: ♦(2010). Susan t. fiske: Award for distinguished scientific contributions. American Psychologist, 65(8), 695-7. doi: 10.1037/a0020437 
--EKarch (talk) 19:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Bibliography

message: This looks like a nice list of articles to start with. I don't think you'll end up citing the page from Princeton with her most cited publications, but rather you may use that is a resource to gather citations yourself. However, you may want to cite her Princeton page if it provides important details about her career. Note that I moved the banners to the top of the page, where they belong.Gseidman (talk) 22:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: References feedback

message: I think this outline will form a good basis for the article. You will want to consider which aspects of Fiske's research merit only short descriptions because they already have their own Wikipedia articles (e.g., stereotype content model, cognitive miser, ambivalent sexism), and what streams of research may not have their own articles, such as her research on the impact of power on stereotyping. These should be described in more detail. Also, when discussing her career history, you will want to highlight how her research interests evolved or built on each other to give a more cohesive picture of her academic career and theoretical contribution, rather than treating each research topic piecemeal.Gseidman (talk) 19:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Feedback on outline

message: The "early years" section looks good, however in "evolution of career" you might just want to check for spelling errors, there are some minor ones throughout. Also, the second sentence in the second paragraph under the "evolution of career" section was somewhat unclear to me, only because of word order though, the content makes sense. Maybe try to clear up the word order there! 
As far as your references go, I think your citations have been great, very helpful and clear. Also, the division of sections makes sense, and the topics are covered well. Tone is good, and I don't see any opinions, just a lot of facts. It does get a little bit wordy in some sections, such as in the first paragraph of "Stereotype Content Model" so maybe the clarity would improve with just some small revisions. Overall, the article was informative without being too technical to the point where any common person would be able to understand it. My main suggestion is just going back through and correcting some spelling errors and perhaps revising word choices to help with clarity. LSanford26 (talk) 22:23, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review for PSY 406

message: Lead paragraph: I would like to see a longer lead paragraph. Just give a few sentences briefly describing the work she is best known for, and then you’ll go into detail about that work in the various subsections of your article.
Evolution of career: The field of social cognition is briefly mentioned and should be linked to the wiki article on the topic. Also, it is mentioned there was a conflict “between the fields” – what fields? 
There is some repetition in the career section. In the middle, Fiske’s testimony on discrimination in a Supreme Court case is mentioned, and then at the end, it’s mentioned again, specifically citing the case (Hopkins). Integrate this information into the same paragraph.
Stereotype content model: There is some overly technical language in this section. For example “the study results support social interdependence predicting the perceived warmth of an individual while the social status of an individual is used to predict the perceived competence of the individual.” The next sentence is unclear as well: “The emotion prejudices one can hold also were found to be combinations of warmth and prejudice.” Prejudices by definition are emotions. Also, the model discusses how the dimensions of warmth and competence can predict different types of emotional reactions to groups, with the understanding the prejudice refers to negative feelings about a group, but that those negative feelings can take many forms (e.g., envy, pity, disgust). This is not clear from the paragraph, as written. These different emotional reactions are discussed later in the paragraph, but the set-up given by these two sentences is unclear. It would also be useful to divide this section into logical paragraphs – It’s a bit long to be one whole paragraph.
Ambivalent sexism theory: In most cases, it is not customary to put the word “the” before the name of a theory, so you should just be referring to the theory as “ambivalent sexism theory”, rather than “the ambivalent sexism theory”. 
'Continuum model of impression: First, it should be referred to as the “Continuum model of impression formation” or “...impressions”. Second, I think there is a good base here, but since the model does not have coverage elsewhere on Wikipedia, more detail would be welcome, citing additional work that uses this model and expanding this section into several paragraphs. It is very well cited in the psychological literature, so there should be a lot to work with here. 
Power-as-control theory: I would also like to see more detail about this theory, similar to what I described for the continuum model above. It also seems like the stereotyping section discusses the power-as-control theory. That information should be moved into the appropriate section. This section should also refer to Fiske's work on the “cognitive miser” and refer back to her work on the stereotype content model and ambivalent sexism. I might also suggest making a broad sub-heading on stereotyping then having sub-headings for those two theories (make "ambivalent sexism" and "the stereotype content model" subheadings under this section). Then I would move this section up to the top of the research section, since Fiske's work on stereotypes is what she is best known for.  
General Comments:
Re-read for simple typos as recommended by the earlier commenters. I corrected a couple of them, but there are some more throughout the article.Gseidman (talk) 01:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Some comments on content and organization

message: Coming here from the Replication crisis article. At first glance on a mobile I missed this section here.  Maybe we promote it to heading?
  Zezen (talk) 14:14, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism as subheading