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?
- Yes, the introductory sentence is clear and straightforward.
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
- While the lead does not have a description of the article's main sections, the contents box definitely included those.
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- Yes, the lead talks about the possibility of a spectrum of suggestibility, but the rest of the article does not have any information about that.
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
- The lead is concise and straightforward, if anything it may be a little short.

Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic?
- Yes, the content is relevant to the topic and seems to be well researched.
Is the content added up-to-date?
- Some of the information I found thought the references were from the early 2000's, which isn't crazy outdated, but it could be edited to add more up to date information.
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
- The content I found missing was concerning the spectrum of suggestibility and the history behind Suggestibility.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral?
- Yes the content is neutral.
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- No it does not seem biased from what I read through.
Are there viewpoints that are over-represented, or underrepresented?
- The viewpoints seem to be up to date and seem well represented. I didn't notice any immediate over or under-represented information.
Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
- No I don't think it is trying to persuade the reader one way or another.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- Yes, there are references for the article, however there need to be more added as there are only 8 listed currently.
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- Yes, these sources are thorough, however there need to be more specifically about "Suggestibility" rather than Hypnosis.
Are the sources current?
- Yes, the sources are fairly current.
Check a few links. Do they work?
- Yes the links I clicked on worked well.

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, I hope that more sections will be added through my peer's work.
Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
- I did not notice 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?
- Yes, the content is well organized.

Images and Media

Guiding questions:

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
- There are no images on this page, however I think it could really benefit from having some added.
Are images well-captioned?
- NA
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
- NA
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
- NA

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

I enjoyed this article, however I think that it is lacking in information specifically about suggestibility. While Hypnosis can be a factor in suggestibility, I wish that there was more information about other circumstances where suggestibility could come into play.

Peer review letter posted to the talk page of Suggestibility:

I really like this article! I think that it is well formatted and well written with the information that is available. I would say that I think that some history behind Suggestibility could be added as there is really nothing listed on the article currently. This would provide more sources as well, and could provide a background that could be referenced for current practices. I also think that images and some visual aspect could really enhance your article! I think that you guys will do a great job on this article, and I look forward to how it is formatted and updated.

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?
- Yes the Lead has a very clear, concise explanation of Virtual Reality and the uses it has.
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
- It talks about it to an extent, but it could be better updated. It does not talk about the history of VR in the Lead, but that is a major section.
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- This article has all of the information present, and from what I could tell was not missing any information that it had in the introduction.
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
- The lead is fairly concise and well written, I do not think it is over-detailed.

Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic?
- Yes, this is probably the most up to date article I read since it is so prevalent in today's world.
Is the content added up-to-date?
- Yes, this content is up to date within the last 5 years from what I could see.
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
- No I could not see any missing content, I think this article covered all necessary information and did not leave anything out.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral?
- Yes, the article is fairly neutral. If anything, I think it may be pushing the "coolness" of VR, and how it could or should be used by most large corporations.
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- I did not find a specific claim that appeared to directly show a biased position, but I did get the overall feeling that it was something that couldn't be avoided in today's society.
Are there viewpoints that are over-represented, or underrepresented?
- I think that all of the viewpoints are accurately represented.
Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
- Yes, I think that this article is attempting to persuade the readers to get used to the idea that VR is the next big thing and will be everywhere one day. I don't think this a bad thing though, it is similar to how people felt about cell phones when they were new.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- Yes! There are almost 100 sources that were used and cited in this article.
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- Yes, all of these sources were thorough and up to date.
Are the sources current?
- Yes, the sources I clicked on were all new within 5 years.
Check a few links. Do they work?
- Yes, the 6 links I clicked on all worked.

Organization

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
- Yes, I think that the writing is all clear and well written.
Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
- I did not see any grammatical errors or spelling errors.
Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
- Yes, I think this article is exceptionally well formatted.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
- Yes! There are many images in this article and I think they are excellent to provide a visual guide to the section the article is going over.
Are images well-captioned?
- Yes, all of the images are well captioned with a description.
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
- Yes, from what I could tell, all these images followed Wikipedia's copyright regulations.
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
- Yes, I think these images are positioned well and in the best fitted places for the topics.

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
- I think that this article is pretty current and adding more information might be a bit difficult, but there will always be new information and studies that can be added.

Overall evaluation

I though the article looked really nice, I think that it in ways is over informative, but really that is a personal preference and for Wikipedia, this is a good thing. I think all of the information is up to date thanks to the recent use and updates to Virtual Reality.

Peer review letter posted to the talk page of Virtual Reality:

I found this article to currently be the most well informed and articulated! I have always found Virtual Reality interesting and I think this article was up to date and has plenty of information about the topic. One thing that I think could really add to this article are more images. I am a visual learner so I am very excited when I see all the images on the Wikipedia pages. I think that there is a lot of information to go over and look through to add and update this page! - Tonilynn Ludwig