Wikipedia:Peer review/Social evolutionism/archive1

Social evolutionism

This is one of the most important social theories and quite an interesting subject, I think. Over the past few weeks I have research this subject, written the article on social evolutionism based on sociology coursebook and various online sources, and after some discussion on relevant talk pages, merged this article with the cultural evolution now a redirect. I'd like to hear your opinion on the article in its present state - especially as I think it is comprehensive enough to be FAC soon. I am also considering moving it to socio-cultural evolutionism. Any comments highly appreciated. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article is nicely written, comprehensive and raises some interesting points. I only found a few minor syntax and spelling issues. ("a anthropological") It could do with some illustrations, even if they are just images of the important theorists mentioned in the text. A few minor issues:
1. I'm a little sceptical about some of the generalizations that are used. The subject matter makes a number of inferences concerning European thinking as a whole. Europe predominantly thinks society is in decline, or Europe's self-confidence is crippled, for example. I'd like to see such generalizations be made more guardedly, or backed up with data or quotes of expert opinion.
- - Hmmm. Not sure how to address it, perhaps you could rewrite those sentences - or at least one to show me what you mean? I will go add few pictures now. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - So how would you go about proving to me, for example, that "Europe's self-confidence is crippled"? From where did that opinion come? Was it an international poll? An expert opinion? I think the person making such an assertion in the text needs to be the one to back it up. Thanks. :) — RJH 14:48, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - Before my edits, the articles had no references, I added those I used/know. Those words are from edits older then mine which I merged into this article. I don't think those generalisations are bad, but if you do, feel free to edit them out. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 11:20, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
1. The conclusions concerning Marshall Sahlins's Evolution and Culture seems backwards to me. If there is a general diffusion of cultural influences, wouldn't that tend to reduce uniqueness?
- - It also sounds strange to me. I translated the relevant para from Sztompka's book, and had the same impression there is a problem with the logic in the orginal text. I need to read up on this before FAC and clear the confusion, although I hope somebody more familiar with Sahlin's work would clarify this in the meantime. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - After some reading, I rewrote it - hopefully it is less confusing and more correct now. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:39, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
1. The article could do with a link to Guns, Germs, and Steel in the "see also" section. — RJH 14:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- - Done. I remember reading it some time ago, good point - it fits in this theme. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]