User:Buginajar/Operant conditioning chamber/Beccyw Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Buginajar


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Buginajar/Operant conditioning chamber


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Operant conditioning chamber

Content
Most plans for this contribution seem to be fixing and expanding upon the pre-existing article, which I think is a good route to take for this topic since the article already has a lot of information in it. Adjusting the part where someone wrote an approximation of the time between Thorndike and Skinner's discoveries is a good idea, it makes more sense to have the specific years on an informational page when they're available. I also think adding more information specifically on Skinner is a good idea since the article is about his device specifically, though he was influenced by Thorndike. I would look into seeing if there's any more information or sections you could add to expand the article rather than just fixing what is already there in order to make your contributions more apparent.

Tone and balance
The original article has a neutral tone and while you haven't written any example sentences or paragraphs of what you're going to add to the article your plans seem to be upholding the neutral standpoint. There is one instance in the article that seems to be pushing a negative tone towards Facebook so I'm glad you picked up on this and plan to fix it.

Sources and references
I was able to find all of your sources online which is good. Three of your references were books or research journal articles which look to be legitimate and one is an encyclopedia, which is a good source to have. One of your sources was a website article and doesn't seem to be peer-reviewed, but they do cite their sources for their information so it should be fine.

Organization
All of your spelling and grammar seems to be good, I couldn't find any mistakes.

Images and media
You mentioned possibly adding another photo of a physical Skinner box. I think this would be a good idea, as you pointed out the one in the article is kind of confusing to look at, as well as the fact that the article itself doesn't have many images.

Overall impressions
I think your contributions will really help this article. I appreciate the way you explained everything you plan to add and why you are fixing certain things, it makes your intentions very clear. I think adding citations is a really good idea especially considering the article has a notice saying it needs additional citations for verification. It is clear you did a lot of research on this topic in order to pick up on the specific things that need to be fixed. My only suggestion would be to see about possibly adding some more new information of your own, maybe see about finding a better example of modern operant conditioning to replace the Facebook statements.