User talk:Asoldano16/sandbox

Peer Review - Raymond Zheng

What does the article (or section) do well?

If you're taking Sports Psych with Kimball I can see it! I think you're doing a really good job in going into depth of the different aspects of sport psychology of the athlete. The way you're explaining the different theories behind motivation and such is extremely helpful for those who want to know more about sports psychology and how it affects not only athletes but people on a daily basis.

What changes would you suggest overall?

For the section about clinical sports psychologists it could be said that clinical sports psychologists are licensed to actually work on clients with clinically diagnosed issues. Non-licensed education sports psychologists are more like mental coaches that work with people for performance enhancement with mental skills training. If you wanted to expand on imagery I think it would be beneficial to add on and expand on perspectives of imagery and the theories of it. You can also talk about injury and how it affects athletes and how do or don't recover from it. I think the risk behind explaining all of the theories is that it might show bias towards those specific theories as there could be other theories out there that aren't quite as known. I think it would be beneficial to add to each section explaining that there are others out there.

What is the most important thing that the author could do to improve his/her contribution?

I think the biggest thing I could offer you is try to be more neutral in terms of writing your sections. I think it's great that you're going into such detail about such topics but it is hard to list out theories and different aspects without being biased. Also, I think it would be great to create charts or add images as it provides a better visual of how specific aspects work.

Did you glean anything from your classmate's work that could be applicable to your own? If so, let him/her know!

I could definitely could talk more about roles in my article and how they are important in treating patients/clients.

Peer Review - Justin LaGraff

1. What you do well: Very approachable topic; easy to understand. Also very relevant; performance anxiety is a very common topic of discussion in any field requiring live performance, whether it's sports, dancing, music, and what not. As a musician, I know that there is a fine line between constructive stress and well.....destructive stress. You have a good layout of everything; all of the theories and basic explanations for each.

2. Improve: Could be a little more "technical", in which I mean could draw more information from rigorous sources that study your topic more in-depth. You explain everything in direct language, which is good, but overall your tone and depth is a bit too informal.

3. Biggest thing to improve: Really just what I said before. Also, maybe I would consider expanding on the other sections of Sports Pscyhology, not just the personality one.

4. What I could learn: Again, you do a good job stating everything with direct clear language. My own topic is on studying the genetic mechanisms behind Polycystic Kidney Disease. If I could take one thing away from your article, it is simply a reminder to try to be coherent and not TOO complicated in language, even in a difficult molecular bio topic.

giaclagraff (talk) 22:08, 29 October 2018 (EST)Justin LaGraff