User:10658513uvu/sandbox

PEER REVIEW #1

General info

Whose work are you reviewing? Marypolatis
Link to draft you're reviewing: Educational psychology

Lead

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
- No, the article I am reading does not currently have the new updated content that they are working on.
Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
- Yes, it clearly defines the subject and then goes into a brief background of the topic.
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
- There are links to other forms of applied psychology and the article does begin to go into the major sections and perspectives.
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- It does talk about being informed by neuroscience, however the article does not give any further information into how it is connected.
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
- I do think that this lead is a bit over detailed, it may seem somewhat overwhelming to visitors to the page. However it seems like it will provide good information.

Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic?
- Yes, all of the history and current scientific processes are all relevant to the topic.
Is the content added up-to-date?
- From my reading, I did find the content up to date, within the last 10 years.
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
- Other than neuroscience being mentioned and never revisited, there was not any other content I saw missing. or irrelevant.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral?
- Yes, this article does a good job of staying neutral.
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- No, I think the article stays neutral and does not have any significant biased positions.
Are there viewpoints that are over-represented, or underrepresented?
- I think the history of Educational Psychology is extensive, while the application of it today is less developed. I hope that as changes are made to the page that we will be given more information about the modern day application in schools across the globe.
Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
- The general persuasion of the article is that Educational Psychology can benefit students today, but I don't think that it is necessarily forcing a viewpoint on the readers.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- Yes, this article is well sourced with over 60 sources to go through.
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- I looked through a handful of the sources, and they are scholarly articles or journals that go into depth about the topic and provide good well reviewed information.
Are the sources current?
- Yes, most of the sources are current.
Check a few links. Do they work?
- Yes! All of the links I chose to look through worked.

Organization

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
- Yes, the content is well written without grammatical errors. It is easy to read and it is well formatted.
Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
- There were no grammatical errors that caught my eye as I read through. If anything, there were a few run on sentences that could be edited down.
Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
- Yes, the article is well formatted and easy to locate a point of topic.

Images and Media

Guiding questions:

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
- There are a few basic illustrations of graphs and charts, but they don't really add much to the content. Hopefully my peers will be adding more pictures onto the article to enhance the visual aspect.
Are images well-captioned?
- Yes, all of the images are captioned and labeled.
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
- From what I could tell, yes they were were all in line with Wikipedia's copyright guidelines.
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
- For the most part yes. I do wish there were more pictures to go over, as I feel it would add to the different topics within the article.

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
- Yes I think with the changes that will be added, they will bump up this article to the next level.
What are the strengths of the content added?
- More detail and description help clarify the content.
How can the content added be improved?
- More visual imagery and maybe more focus on the modern day application practices of Educational Psychology.

Overall evaluation

I think that this page gives a lot of really good and detailed content. I do wish that some more images were added to help visual learners. I personally think the history of the page is quite long, as opposed to the current theories and learning, but I understand that it shouldn't be cut down on, rather we need more information to be given to the second half of the article. I really thought this article was an interesting topic though.

Peer review letter posted to the talk page of Educational Psychology:

"I hate to admit this, but I originally was not terribly interested in this topic. However, I found it very interesting and insightful! I did find the history was quite long as opposed to the rest of the article, but as I read through I found that history was where all of this information came to fruition. One critique I had was to add more visual imagery if possible. I think that it can really highlight a topic and it provides us as readers something to look for in our own lives. I think that this is an incredibly important topic and I can't wait for further information to be added and updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 10658513uvu (talk • contribs) 21:00, 18 October 2019 (UTC)"

PEER REVIEW #2

General info

Whose work are you reviewing? Kbarlow18
Link to draft you're reviewing: Suggestibility

Lead

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
- No, the article I am reading does not currently have the new updated content that they are working on
Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic?
Is the content added up-to-date?
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral?
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
Are the sources current?
Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
Are images well-captioned?
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
What are the strengths of the content added?
How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation

PEER REVIEW #3

General info

Whose work are you reviewing? Killersrampage, MiguelG16
Link to draft you're reviewing: Virtual reality

Lead

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
- No, the article I am reading does not currently have the new updated content that they are working on
Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic?
Is the content added up-to-date?
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral?
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
Are the sources current?
Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
Are images well-captioned?
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
What are the strengths of the content added?
How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation

Share the love (for posting on their talk page)

First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way?
What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?
What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?
Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know!