Talk:Big Five personality traits

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Big Five personality traits article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 365 days

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

Sociology High‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology 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.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lead Paragraph

I think this article is very well done so far, but I did notice that the lead paragraph could maybe use some revising. I noticed that in the description of the big 5 personality traits, they used the word personality trait in the definition. This is a bit confusing for readers who are looking for a true definition. I also think it would be helpful if the lead paragraph contained a summary of the different topics that will be discussed in the content of the article so readers know what to expect. Abby fisher (talk) 23:00, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I gave an edit to the first sentence of the lead paragraph clarifying the definition of the Big five trying to maintain the meaning of what was previously stated. I do think there is still something missing from my small edit, I just can't think of it. GardenVarietyChef (talk) 00:40, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that throughout the article that some words are bolded and contain definitions when hovered over, and I wonder if the same could be done for the word "taxonomy". If so, then I feel like it would aid in adding to some small level of understanding.Bcraymond01 (talk) 18:18, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I took out the word taxonomy in the lead-in since it was accompanied by grouping anyway, which should be sufficient. later in the article when the word is used it is used appropriately. GardenVarietyChef (talk) 00:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neuroticism

Last full paragraph in this section has no real source. Can we find a source for this last sentence? Gracepel (talk) 02:18, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Highly Objectionable and Unsupported reversal of Agreeableness

critical/rational as the opposite of friendly/compassionate is certainly wrong, telling, and unsupported. I suggest replacing rational with judgmental which is what's in Agreeableness. Lycurgus (talk) 07:00, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ty Lycurgus (talk) 14:35, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Comparative Management Seminar

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 January 2024 and 20 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Samory Loukakou, Anaelle Bertolino-Radu, YI-AN, CHUANG (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Soomin974.

— Assignment last updated by Luca Vieten (talk) 22:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]