User:Carlton7567/sandbox

Peer Review 1 (Lucid Dreaming)

Share the Love:

1. 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?
   1. The article presents the definition, history, and research into lucid dreams very clearly. I enjoyed the section titled Definition because it was able to give the various aspects of lucid dreaming in a way that was very clear and concise. It helped an abstract notion feel more understandable. Beyond this, many of the phrases and sentences were very clear and well done.
2. What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?
   1. If I could suggest any changes, they would mainly be on the alternative theories and risks sections of the article. These sections felt a little bare bones while reading them as well as not heavily cited. Expanding on these topics can help the article feel more dynamic as well as have a greater depth.
3. What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?
   1. The most important improvement I think the author could add to this article is to add some more information and sources for the alternative points of view and risks sections.
4. Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know!
   1. I really liked how you were able to explain the history of lucid dreaming as well as some modern uses for it. I hope to add those kind of elements to the article I am currently working to improve on.

Peer Review Letter:

The article is able to present the definition, history, and research into lucid dreaming very clearly. The article also does a good job of maintaining a neutral perspective, I was never able to find an instance of the article trying to persuade the readers to one or another viewpoint. I also thought you did a good job on the Definition subsection, it was able to clearly explain the aspects of lucid dreaming in a way that is very clear and concise, it helped make a somewhat abstract notion feel more understandable. An area for improvement in the article would be the in the alternative theories and risks subsection. The section is a bit bare bones and does not contain as many citations. Expanding this section can help the article feel more dynamic and increase its depth. For the most part, however, good job! The article is able to make the topic feel very understandable as well as give some insight into the modern uses for it. I hope to use some modern examples in an article I am working on enhancing for a class in the way you did. Thanks for reading and good job!

Follow Their Lead:

• Looking at the lead by itself, do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic?
  • The lead clearly and concisely gives a simple definition of lucid dreaming, but does little outside of that. A few more sentences dealing with what is in the rest of the article can help strengthen the lead. Outside of that, it has a strong and simple start.
• Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information?
  • The lead does reflect the most important information in that it cuts to the chase by describing what a lucid dream is.
• Does the lead give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? Is anything missing? Is anything redundant?
  • The lead gives more weight to the definition of a lucid dream but is missing many of the other areas that is discussed within the article. A brief history of lucid dreaming as well as the uses lucid dreaming has in the medical world would not be out of place within the lead to help better represent the entire article.

A Clear Structure:

• Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)?
  • I believe that the sections are well organized and in a sensible order. The article follows the pattern of beginning with the original definition, the scientific history behind lucid dreaming, which is then followed by applications of lucid dreaming. I would not change anything about the structure except for putting the Risks section before the In Popular Culture section to help the section before flow a little better. Outside of that, I think it is great.

A Balancing Act:

• Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? Is anything off-topic?
  • I believe that each section's length is equal to its importance within the article. No one subject felt unnecessarily long, and everything seemed to flow smoothly while I read it. The only section that may be considered off topic is the In Popular Culture section, but this could be changed by adding a little more information to the section to round it out a bit better. That said, the changes would be so small in that section it is currently working well as is.
• Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing?
  • The article does mention all relevant perspectives by adding an alternate theories and risk section. These points are fairly small and not in depth, additional research could help strengthen these perspectives.
• Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view?
  • The article does not draw any conclusions or try to convince the reader of any specific view point. It remains neutral.

Neutral Content:

• Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article?
  • I am not able to guess the authors perspective from reading the article. It is a very factual focused article.
• Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral? For example, "the best idea," "most people," or negative associations, such as "While it's obvious that x, some insist that y."
  • While scanning through the article again I was not able to find any non neutral phrases.
• Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..."
  • The Risks section does make a couple claims for various groups of people, but the claims never feel out of place. Another citation could help legitimize what is spoken by the author in that section.
• Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? Remember, neutral doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic.
  • The article does focus a bit more on the positive information that the negative. The balance between the two is close, but further depth into some of the negative information about lucid dreaming or alternative theories would help strengthen the article in my opinion.

Reliable Sources:

• Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors?
  • Most of the statements in the article connect back to various studies, textbooks, and journal articles with minimal blogs from what I looked at.
• Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it may lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view.
  • No, most of the statements are attributed too many sources spread throughout all of the article.
• Are there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you can't find stated in the references? Just because there is a source listed, doesn't mean it's presented accurately!
  • Most of the statements in the article can be linked to the reference section. There are a few sections though that rely on one source, but the source is put in a semi confusing spot. Reevaluating the placement of a couple of the citations may be beneficial.

Peer Review 2 (Decay Theory)

Share the Love:

1. 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?
   1. The article has a clear lead and is able to concisely explain the history of the theory. The way you were able to keep the history short and concise is a strength that I think you did well.
2. What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?
   1. The main changes I would add to the article is further discussion about how decay theory is supposed to operate within the article itself. Most of the information for that is found in the lead, but would do better having it expanded upon within the article itself. Also adding some original supportive evidence in favor of the theory before it was discredited can aid the theory in being balanced all around.
3. What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?
   1. The most important thing I think the author could do is to expand and explain Decay Theory within the article itself before the inconsistencies section.
4. Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know!
   1. I really enjoyed how you were able to portray a quick history of the theory which is something that I want to add to the article I am currently improving on.

Peer Review Letter:

The article's lead is able to very clearly explain the basics of decay theory and set up for the article. You also do a good job with bringing in counterpoints and explaining the inconsistencies with the theory. A couple of improvements can be made though. The first would be to add some more information to the lead to better reflect the majority of the content actually contained in the article itself. Currently the article has a focus on the inconsistencies and history and less on the theory itself. Changing the lead to reflect this would strengthen the article. A second improvement would be to add more information about how the original researchers thought decay theory would work in itself. The lead has a great introduction, but diving in deeper in the article would enhance greatly the information already presented as well as give the inconsistencies section more meaning. This would allow the article to be more balanced between positive and negative information. All of this said, I really liked how you were able to do a short but concise history of decay theory. Being able to take a subject that may seem long and complicated and shorten it is a skill, so good job. I may add a similar section to an article I am currently working on enhancing for a class. Good job and keep up the effort!

Follow Their Lead:

• Looking at the lead by itself, do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic?
  • I do feel satisfied that I know the importance of Decay theory from the lead. It concisely describes what it is and how it applies to just about everyone's life. The only suggestion I would add is that some of the sentence wording feels a little awkward. Editing that could help tidy the lead up a bit.
• Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information?
  • The lead does not reflect the most important information of the article itself. Most of the article has a focus on the inconsistencies of decay theory and less on how the theory works in itself. Editing the lead to reflect the inconsistencies more can help the lead align with the entire article a bit stronger.
• Does the lead give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? Is anything missing? Is anything redundant?
  • The lead gives more weight to the definition of decay theory but does not mention the majority of the article involving the inconsistencies of the theory.

A Clear Structure:

• Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)?
  • The structure of the article is organized well and in a good order. I have no complaints.

A Balancing Act:

• Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? Is anything off-topic?
  • The article length is not equal to the importance of the subject. Much of the article has a focus on the inconsistencies and abandoning of the theory and less on how the original theory was outlined to work. Being able to expand how the theory was supposed to operate can strengthen the article.
• Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing?
  • The article does reflect all of the perspectives, but the support for decay theory is found wanting. Much of the focus is on the inconsistencies when more should be placed in the other side if able.
• Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view?
  • The article is not consciously trying to convince the reader to accept any one particular view point, it more just under defends the supporting viewpoint for the theory.

Neutral Content:

• Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article?
  • Not completely, but if I were to hazard a guess it would be that decay theory is problematic and other theories should be looked at to discover the cause of memory loss.
• Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral? For example, "the best idea," "most people," or negative associations, such as "While it's obvious that x, some insist that y."
  • I could not find any words or phrases that don't feel neutral. Good job.
• Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..."
  • No claims are made in behalf of unnamed groups.
• Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? Remember, neutral doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic.
  • The article has a heavy focus on the negative information of the article. Going into more detail about the intricacies of the actual theory itself and possible supportive evidence for it could go a long way in aiding the article, and then describe why it is no longer actively used within the psychology community.

Reliable Sources:

• Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors?
  • The statements in the article are connected to reliable sources from what I found.
• Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it may lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view.
  • The first and 20th source are frequently cited throughout the article. The rest of the sources mentioned are well placed and healthily used.
• Are there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you can't find stated in the references? Just because there is a source listed, doesn't mean it's presented accurately!
  • The systems interaction section can use some further sources or reciting sources already mentioned. Currently it ends with chunk of information that has no citation.

Peer Review 3 (Creative Problem Solving)

Share the Love:

1. 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?
   1. The article has a good structure and is unbiased. It manages to keep to the information is has without any attempt to persuade the readers to one side or the other which was great to see. The structure also follows a very logical flow of information which was nice.
2. What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?
   1. A couple changes I would suggest would be to find several more sources connecting back to journal articles/textbooks to help fill out more information for this article. The article as it currently stands is very bare bones and can use more information to beef it up a bit.
3. What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?
   1. Finding more sources to fill out the information needed in the article would be the best thing to be done to improve the article from my point of view.
4. Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know!
   1. With all of that said, I really think that the structure and unbiased language was great and something I am planning on improving within my own article. Keep up the good work.

Peer Review Letter:

Your article manages to have a good general structure in place, is unbiased, and is definitely in a place to grow out to become a really good article. It manages to stick to the information presented without any attempt to persuade readers to one or another viewpoint from what I currently see. The structure also follows a very logical flow of information. A couple of tweaks can still be made to really solidify the effort already put into the article. The biggest tweak would be to find several more sources from textbooks, journal articles, etc. to back up the information in the article as well as be used to expand and reinforce the information within the article. There are several statements, especially in the technique and tools section, that is never backed up by a source or the source was misplaced. Another tweak would be to remove the quote or use it in a more necessary way. In its current state the quote is a bit unnecessary. The main change would be to keep working on finding sources though. With all of this said, the structure and unbiased language is the current strength of the article and something I hope to apply more strongly into an article I am currently editing for a class. Good job and keep going!

Follow Their Lead:

• Looking at the lead by itself, do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic?
  • The lead quickly explains what creative problem solving is with little to no added detail about the rest of the article.
• Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information?
  • The lead does hit the most important information of explaining what creative problem solving is, but does not acknowledge a large chunk of the article that discusses tools and techniques of creative problem solving. Adding a reference to this would help.
• Does the lead give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? Is anything missing? Is anything redundant?
  • The lead gives more weight to the definition of creative problem solving but lacks the techniques also mentioned. There is nothing redundant within the lead.

A Clear Structure:

• Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)?
  • The sections are organized well and in a sensible order. The article is quite short but manages to keep the two or three sections in an order that makes sense.

A Balancing Act:

• Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? Is anything off-topic?
  • Each section is equal to its importance to the article subject from what I saw. There were a couple things that were unnecessary and off topic including a quote being stated for no apparent reason and a reference to a television show.
• Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing?
  • The article does not reference any opposing viewpoints to the theories and techniques within the article. The article is also quite short and can use substantially more information to fill everything out to a comfortable level.
• Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view?
  • The article does not draw conclusions or try to convince the reader of any particular view point. It is currently neutral.

Neutral Content:

• Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article?
  • I would not be able to guess the perspective of the author from reading the article.
• Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral? For example, "the best idea," "most people," or negative associations, such as "While it's obvious that x, some insist that y."
  • There are no words that are not neutral. The author does a great job of keeping the article free of bias.
• Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..."
  • The article does not claim anything on behalf of unnamed groups.
• Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? Remember, neutral doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic.
  • The article focuses more heavily on positive information. Most of the article simply states the information as is without any sort of opposing point of view, that said, with how factual some of the information comes off as I am not convinced the article needs any major correcting in this regard.

Reliable Sources:

• Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors?
  • A couple of the articles do connect back to journal articles and reliable sources, but a few are definitely blogs or dead links. Updating the sources would be a worthwhile endeavor for the article.
• Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it may lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view.
  • The article relies heavily on the sixth source. Much of the article's information that is cited can be traced back to one author creating an imbalance. Finding more journal articles and textbooks can alleviate this.
• Are there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you can't find stated in the references? Just because there is a source listed, doesn't mean it's presented accurately!
  • There are several unsourced statements. They just present the information but do not give any sort of citation to fall back on. These statements are found in the technique and tools section.

Article being edited:

“Control has been one of the most widely explored topics in the social and psychological sciences” In psychology it can refer to one’s perception regarding one's ability to achieve outcomes (Perceived Control), the ability to select one’s thoughts and actions (cognitive control), the ability to regulate one’s feelings or attitudes toward something (emotional control), one’s ability to act on prescribed behaviors (motivational control), the amount of control one seeks within a relationship (control desire), the ability to inhibit thoughts or actions in favor of others (inhibitory control), selecting one’s social environment for one’s benefit (social control), the attempt to regulate impulses or attentional processes (Ego control), and the ability to regulate how much effort one invests into a goal (effortful control).

Perceived control

Perceived control in psychology is a “person’s belief that he or she is capable of obtaining desired outcomes, avoiding undesired outcomes, and achieving goals.” High perceived control is associated with better health, relationships, and adjustment. Strategies for restoring perceived control are called Compensatory control strategies. One's perception of perceived control is influenced by the past and future as well as what the desired outcome of an event may be. Perceived control is often associated with the term locus of control. Perceived control can be broken down into two different categories including primary and secondary perceived control which deal with one's perception of control over the environment or their wishes within that environment.

Control desire

Control desire in the context of a sales relationship refers to the amount of control a customer wants within the relationship.

Cognitive control

Cognitive control in psychology describes “the ability to control one’s thoughts and actions.” It is also known as controlled processing, executive attention, and supervisory attention. Controlled behaviors are guided by maintenance, updating, and representing task goals, and inhibiting information irrelevant to the task goal. Cognitive control is often developed through reinforcement as well as learning from previous experiences. Increased cognitive control allows individuals to have increased flexibility in their ability to choose between conflicting stimuli. Cognitive control is commonly tested using the Stroop color-word task as well as the Eriksen flanker task.

Emotional control

Emotional control is a term from the self-regulatory psychology literature and refers to “the ability to self-manage or regulate attitudes and feelings that directly affect participant receptiveness to, and implementation of, training activities.”

Motivational control

Motivational control in psychology “refers to the self-regulatory mechanism by which individuals are able to act on prescribed behaviors to implement training activities.” For example, a student who studies for an hour each morning for two months before a test, whether or not the student likes studying.

Inhibitory control

Inhibitory control or “IC” in psychology refers to a type of self-regulation defined as “the ability to inhibit prepotent thoughts or actions flexibly, often in favor of a subdominant action, typically in goal-directed behavior”. There are two types of IC: hot and cold. Hot IC involves activities or tasks related to emotion regulation, and cold IC involves abstract activities or tasks. A lack of inhibitory control can lead to difficulties in three main areas of life including motor, attentional, and behavioral control. Inhibitory control is also involved in the process of helping humans correct, react, and improve social behavior.

Inhibitory control is connected with several mental disorders including Behavioral Inhibition, Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder (ADHD), and Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. Alcohol and drugs also influence one's inhibitory control.

Social control

Social control is learning psychology “refers to an individual’s skills in engaging the social environment in ways that help to support and reinforce his or her learning activities.”

Ego control

Ego control in psychology refers to “the efforts of the individual to control ‘thoughts, emotions, impulses or appetites… task performances [and] attentional processes.’ ” Failure of ego control is seen as a central problem in individuals who suffer from substance abuse disorders.

Situational control

Situational control in psychology is part of leadership psychology that refers to “the degree to which the situation provides the leader “with potential influence over the group’s behavior”.

Effortful control

Effortful control in psychology refers to a type of self regulation. It is a broader construct than inhibitory control, and encompasses working memory and attention shifting. Effortful control works by allowing individuals the ability to start or stop behaviors they may or may not want to do through attention management.