User:Imaig1

I am a Junior at the University of Dayton, and this page is to fulfill the requirements for my History of Psychology course. (Imaig1 (talk) 16:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC))

Hello from your peer reviewer! Here are a few comments:
General

1. Does the lead section provide a stand-alone concise summary of the article? Yes, I think the lead section is good. I didn’t know what I was getting into before I started reading, and I have a clear understanding of what I’ll be reading now that I read the lead.

2. Does the contribution appear to be cut and pasted from an existing source without appropriate citation? No, references are properly cited (from what I can tell).

3. Is field-specific jargon avoided where possible and explained where necessary? I.e., is the general lay audience of an encyclopedia adequately kept in mind by the author and student-editor? Yes – I’m certainly no psych expert, and I was able to understand everything. The only iffy term is “self-actualization,” but there is a WikiLink, so my confusion was easily cleared up.

4. Are wikilinks, i.e., links to other Wikipedia articles, provided where appropriate? Could you possibly add WikiLinks to the pages for Carl Rogers, William Ickes, and William Tooke? The articles do exist, although I’m not sure of their quality.

5. Does the contribution maintain a neutral point of view, consist of verifiable statements, and avoid becoming original research/opinion? Yes, the article maintains a neutral point-of-view; there is no obvious bias. Although I did not try, the statements made in the article seem verifiable. The article reads as a compilation of facts, not as original research.

6. Are facts cited from reputable sources, preferably sources that are accessible and up-to-date, except those that are added to provide historical relevance to the article? Are additional references for further reading provided? At a glance, the references look reputable; some of them seem incomplete (not in APA style formatting) however. There is no specific “Further Reading” section, but I would guess that any of the references listed would fall into that category.

7. Is the contribution clear; written to avoid ambiguity and misunderstanding, using logical structure, and plain clear prose; free of redundant language? Yes; I have no complaints in any of these regards.

8. Are the grammar, verb tenses, and spelling correct? Common mistake: multiple verb tenses throughout article. Verb tense does switch between past and present tense. Past tense is appropriate when talking about past events, of course. Would it be feasible to write the entire article in past tense?

9. Is the page categorized appropriately? I’m a little confused by the formatting of the section headers. Do you mean to add more text between the bolded titles? If not, I would suggest showing them as regular text(same as the main body of the article).

10. In general, are the reasons why the article topic is notable made clear, providing enough detail on important aspects, without providing too much detail on minor points? I can see why the topic is notable. It seems as though you intend to add more information about some important aspects, so I won’t rag on you for that.

11. Are links provided to publicly-available versions of all primary sources, such as original articles? Are citations done properly? As I mentioned above, there are a few questionable reference-APA formatting issues.

12. Are references formatted properly? Is it possible to show the references in a clean list? They are very hard to look at while bunched up in a paragraph.

13. Is the "educational assignment" template included on the article's discussion page? Yes, the banner is there.

Specific

Could you possibly expand upon each of the “Four Areas of Study”? They are obviously important if they have their own section, but I want to know more.

Also, could you maybe expand the history aspect a bit more? For example, what led Rogers to this idea? I know from my research that this can be difficult.

I don’t think that a picture would improve the article.

CME 13 (talk) 03:24, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, This is Dr. D. I have reviewed, briefly, the interesting articles you have posted to your queue and find only one article to be very doable: empathic accuracy, because of its relationship to Carl Rogers and humanistic personality theory.

The others are "iffy" or not doable.

None of the other article is relevant to the history of psychology, it needs a lot of tweaking. For that reason, I believe that you would be taking on a big load in making any of the others relevant to the history of psychology. Although that could be done in the case of self-serving bias, it is a big challenge and I believe beyond the scope of our course time available. The other articles are much more related to political science (Bandwagon effect), criminology (Angel of Death), or legal definitions and evaluations of mental health (Competence).

You have one excellent choices and one “maybe.” I suggest that you select one of those three, given my comments, and focus on it for your project. Let me know if you have any questions! WebFlower1 (talk) 20:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I am planning on doing Empathic Accuracy. I have listed 3 references below that I will be reviewing and researching.

Marangoni, Carol; Garcia, Stella; Ickes, William; Teng, Gary. (1995). Empathic accuracy in a clinically relevant setting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 68(5), 854-869. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.68.5.854

Davis, Mark H.;Kraus, Linda A. (1997). Empathic accuracy. Empathic accuracy, (pp. 144-168) New York, NY, US: Guilford PressIckes, William John (Ed), viii, 352 pp.

Thomas, Geoff. (1999). Accuracy in empathic and trait judgements: The quest for the good judge, good target, good trait and good relationship. University of Cantebury: Psychology. My sandbox