User:AnhrUVU/sandbox

Article I'm contributing to: Lucid Dream

Sections focused on revising: Prevalence and Frequency

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0924-9338(15)31372-9

Prevalence and frequency[edit]
In 2016, a meta-analytic study by David Saunders and colleagues  on 34 lucid dreaming studies, taken from a period of 50 years, demonstrated that 55% of a pooled sample of 24,282 people claimed to have experienced lucid dreams at least once or more in their lifetime. Furthermore, for those that stated they did experience lucid dreams, approximately 23% reported to experience them on a regular basis, as often as once a month or more.

Proposed edits to Article:

In 2016, a meta-analytic study by David Saunders and colleagues  on 34 lucid dreaming studies, taken from a period of 50 years, demonstrated that 55% of a pooled sample of 24,282 people claimed to have experienced lucid dreams at least once or more in their lifetime. Furthermore, for those that stated they did experience lucid dreams, approximately 23% reported to experience them on a regular basis, as often as once a month or more. There have been multiple studies that investigate the frequency of lucid dreaming. In 2019, a study was conducted to evaluate the relationship between meditation, mindfulness and lucid dream frequency. Results showed a connection between long-term meditators and higher lucid dream frequency compared to meditation-naive individuals because of increased awareness of waking and sleeping states.

In a 2004 study on lucid dream frequency and personality, there was a moderate correlation between nightmare frequency and frequency of lucid dreaming. Some lucid dreamers also reported that nightmares are a trigger for dream lucidity.

Possible additions:

Adding in more info about the relation between nightmares and lucid dreaming

Popular culture reference:

and in the Netflix series The Mind, Explained.

Peer Review Template:

Peer Review 1: Control

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? Carlton7567
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Carlton7567/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The revisions to the article appear to elsewhere.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead seems to be concise and provide enough detail

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, the content added to the Perceived control section and Cognitive control section is relevant.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? References 2 and 4 from Perceived Control are up to date but reference 3 is from 1987.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The content seems relevant. May consider adding an explanation or hyperlink of the term "locus of control" from the perceived control section.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? The content is neutral
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, there are references for new content.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The sources look thorough
 * Are the sources current? It looks like there is a problem with date values on reference 8.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? The links work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? I did not notice any.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?Yes it is organized in a way that makes sense

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The added information does improve the overall quality. The original article does not have much explanation regarding the different types of control. The user has done a good job of building out the different section perceived, cognitive and inhibitory control.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The strengths are building out the different types of control sections and supporting the sections with references.
 * How can the content added be improved? The content added can be improved by adding links to the wikipedia articles for certain terms that are referenced. Like in inhibitory control the area where ADHD, OCD, etc is referenced.

Overall evaluation
Peer Review 2: Method of Loci

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? existing article (couldn't find another article of a student to review)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Method of loci

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The lead is a multi-paragraph introduction with multiple references
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the sentence is concise and clearly describes the topic.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, the lead does not contain a brief description of the major sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, it seems the information in the lead is present in the rest of the article
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead seems to be concise and provide enough detail

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? The content is relevant
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Several references are outdated. Many are more than 10 years old.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The content in the article belongs and is relevant

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? The content is neutral
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No there are not heavily biased claims
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No there are not view points that are overrepresented or underrepresented
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No the content does not attempt to persuade

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, there are references for the content throughout the article.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The sources look thorough
 * Are the sources current? Almost half of the 32 references are more than 10 years old
 * Check a few links. Do they work? The links work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? I did not notice any.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?Yes it is organized in a way that makes sense

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? I did not review added info since it's not a peer revised article. But the current information is decent.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The strengths are the links to different referenced terms in the material
 * How can the content added be improved? The content added can be improved by adding in a section in the lead on what will be covered in the article.

Overall evaluation
Peer Review 3: Autobiographical Memory

General info[edit]

 * Whose work are you reviewing? Autobiographical memory (could not find another peer article to review, so chose an existing article)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Autobiographical memory

Lead[edit]
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Not reviewing new additions.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the introductory sentence is clear and summarizes the articles topic
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, the lead does not have a brief description of the major sections
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, the lead is only a couple sentences long.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is not detailed enough

Content[edit]
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? There is not added content to review.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? The most recent references are from 2018, some of the information is up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The content seems relevant.

Tone and Balance[edit]
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? The content is neutral
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? no
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? no
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? no

Sources and References[edit]
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, there are references for newer additions
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The sources look thorough
 * Are the sources current? It looks like there is a problem with the majority of sources being over 10 years old. 43 of the 54 are over 10 years old.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? The links work.

Organization[edit]
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? I did not notice any.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?Yes it is organized in a way that makes sense

Overall impressions[edit]
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? There is not added content that was reviwed
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The strengths are the different sections
 * How can the content added be improved? The content added can be improved by updating references and possibly adding a section on fictional portrayals of autobiographical memory. The lead section needs to be built out.