User:Buginajar/Operant conditioning chamber/JusttheletterE Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username) I am reviewing user Buginajar's work


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Buginajar/Operant_conditioning_chamber?preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead
The lead of the article was not changed by my peer, the lead in the original article is decent, but the wording seems a bit weird especially the sentence "It may have been inspired by Jerzy Konorski's studies.". The tone of the lead is a little unprofessional, and it needs to flow a bit more as the last sentence feels a bit disconnected from the rest.

Content
The content added is relevant to the article. My peer added in some references and citations that help back up a lot of the information in the original article, they also fixed an incorrect date in the "history" section. They plan on adding more about Skinner's experiments which the original article lacked in despite being about the Skinner box. I would have liked to see some fully written examples of Skinner's other experiments, and maybe some more detail about what they plan on adding into the original article, but what they have written provides a good outline of the changes they plan on making. The sources are mostly current, with the "oldest" being an article from 2000, which is definitely still current enough for this wiki article. There does not seem to be any missing content, and everything user Buginajar is planning on adding belongs in the article. The article does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps.

Tone and Balance
The content added is neutral, in fact Buginajar plans on removing the commercial application paragraph, as it does not have a neutral tone and seems to have an agenda. There is no issue with the tone and balance of my peer's rough draft, there is a slight issue with the tone of the Lead in the original article, as mentioned in the Lead paragraph.

Sources and References
Buginajar has added some new references and sources, all of which seem to be credible and relate to the article's topic. As mentioned in the "Content" paragraph all the sources are current. The sources are also all from different authors and journals, and the sources come from a decently diverse spectrum of authors. I checked each of the links and they all brought me to the source that they belonged to.

Organization
The content added by Buginajar is concise, well written, and coherent. There are no spelling errors and no grammatical errors and the content is broken up into paragraphs that make sense and are consisting of relevant topics.

Images and Media
Buginajar has plans to add a better and easier to understand picture of a Skinner Box, than the one already present in the original article. They have not added the picture yet, but as long as they follow Wikipedia's guidelines for doing so they should be fine.

Overall Impressions
The content added is definitely an improvement on the original article, especially since Buginajar fixed the incorrect information in the original article. Their plan to take out the commercial application paragraph is definitely a good idea, and it is also a good idea to add a better picture of the Skinner Box. They also added more sources and references which is great, as it helps make the article more credible, and adds more information. The only thing I would change is some slight adjustments of the lead paragraph, as Buginajar kept the lead the original article had and the tone and flow of that section needs to be improved upon. The rough draft is a little bare bones but that almost doesn't matter, as the changes they plan on making to the original article are clear. But other than that Buginajar's rough draft is coherent and adds good and necessary information and sources to the original article.