User:AdreannaRM/Bobo doll experiment/Charosiers Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?
 * I am reviewing AdreannaRM's work on the Bobo doll experiment.


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * This is the link to the draft. However, I believe the student has not begun drafting yet, which is why I will be focusing on the current live article when crafting my review.


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * This is the link to the current version of the article.

Lead

 * Overall, the article's lead is clear and well-constructed. Nevertheless, you could improve it by giving it a slightly more neutral tone. For instance, in the first paragraph, previous editors wrote "the most notable variation of this experiment". This could be changed to "one of the most studied" to remove what can sound like an opinion.
 * The lead's introductory sentence is clear. It concisely summarizes the article's content. It is also great that it takes the time to consider the results of the experiment in relation to social learning theory, since it is a big part of the work and of the article.

Content

 * Each section contributes to the article through its content, aside from the "Synthesis" section. Wikipedia articles do not end with such concluding statements, which are generally associated with academic essays and opinion pieces. Consequently, this section would be better removed. However, you might want to look at the information it contains, for there are elements such as the reference to children's violence, which could be more explicitly stated in the Lead section. Otherwise, the rest of the content does not seem superfluous. However, I would review the categories regarding Media Effects and Cultivation Theory to see if all they contain is relevant to the precise topic of the experiment or it they seem to move astray just a bit. In other words, I would ask myself, "how much does this contribute to one's understanding of the topic?".
 * The content of the article is up-to-date, given the fact that the topic itself is slightly dated. I have left a more detailed comment on this topic in the "Sources and References" section.
 * The criticism section is very important, for it allows you to add extra points of view on the topic and add an element of neutrality to the article's content. It should be lenghten and explored further.

Tone and Balance

 * Although there was a clear effort towards neutrality in the content of the article, the way it is phrased is unneutral in several places. For instance, the first paragraph of "theories supporting media effects" begins with "two major theories". The term "major" should be removed, because it gives too much importance to these two perspectives in comparison to others.
 * Nonetheless, views are well represented on the topic, and the only persuasion the article is guilty of is wanting to show us the importance and impact of these experiments, which is not a bad thing, so long as other opposite views are also well-portrayed in the "criticism" section.

Sources and References

 * In general, claims are backed up by sources, but there are still only twenty of them, and more should be added to better cover the existing literature. Also, many sources were written by Bandura himself, so other authors, as well as marginalized authors, should be consulted as well. Many articles come from the same publisher, journal, or database, so you might want to look elsewhere to get a greater the scope.
 * Most of the sources are up-to-date, with one even dating from as recently as 2020. However, the majority are over five years old, so if you found new ones and more secondary and tertiary sources discussing older reports or articles, it would help enhance the quality and thoroughness of your research.
 * The sources seem to support the claims made, and they are reliable sources. However, I would be careful about the ones written by Bandura himself, since those risk being primary sources: Wikipedia wants us to us secondary and tertiary sources.
 * Also, all article links work, which is fantastic.

Organization

 * Since the article is focusing on the series of experiment, the chronologically linear structure is perfect.
 * The overall content is clear, concise, and well-written. That being said, there are issues of neutrality in the words chosen.

Images and Media

 * The images picked are very useful already, smartly laid out, but I would lengthen the caption of the first one, since it is rather undescriptive.
 * I do not think the images violate Wikipedia's copyright violation.

Overall Impressions

 * Since there is yet to be a draft of this article, I cannot comment on the added content yet.

Have a wonderful day! --Charosiers (talk) 19:38, 26 February 2022 (UTC)