User:Caroliner6/Affective design/Khascall Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Caroliner6


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Caroliner6/Affective design


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Affective design

Evaluate the drafted changes
Hi! To make sure everyone gets two reviews, I'm doing one for you. I'll do another pass before the article goes live as part of the go-live process; this is only preliminary.

Lead
I appreciate you trimming the 'ambient intelligence' piece out of the lead and assigning it into a section seems exactly right. To me the lead still feels pretty jargony and not friendly to people outside the field -- maybe you can trim it further, rephrase some things, and work the new material you're adding into the lead. One or two overview sentences and then one-ish sentence per section is a reasonable goal, I think.

Content
What I see you doing is expanding the intellectual history and grounding of the topic, which makes sense. It'll be important to fill in this section with citations so that it's clear that this is how authoritative sources think about the subject. The user experience design page is a good model I think -- it has history followed by components. You could imagine once this page was done that the UX page might have a similar subsection for affective design like it does for accessibility, with a link to your work as the main article. Usually wikipedia articles minimize the citations of people by name -- that goes in the footnotes, with the exception of perhaps the most prominent thinker on the topic.

Tone and Balance
One place that it's easy to veer away from the neutral wikipedia tone is when talking about people -- e.g. I wouldn't call Norman 'a prominent figure' -- I'm not saying that's wrong, but it's not neutral encyclopedic tone. I would link to his wikipage for sure. For some examples of how to talk about intellectual accomplishments in the article about the concept, check the article on Human capital -- it talks about who coined the phrase, or who won a prize for it, etc. The idea is to emphasize factual accomplishments rather than judgments.

Sources and References
You added several new references which look good; keep going with this. You might find it useful to turn your attention to books rather than articles to keep a broad/general tone; sometimes with overarching concepts like this a journal article can be less than helpful. There are quite a few solid books available via the UW's free e-book systems.

Organization
The content you added is clean and the new sections you're adding or will add seem to be going in the right direction. The main challenge is to keep editing out the jargon so that it explains the concept to the average reader.

Images and Media
The article would definitely benefit from images; I wonder if as you get going with the applications section there will be opportunities to add images. Maybe things that are considered 'famous examples' of designs that reflect affective design principles? It's not my area of expertise but I see a few examples when I search on commons.wikimedia.org for 'emotion robots' ....maybe you have better ideas. :)

Overall impressions
The article is definitely making progress toward the goals we have for this course. The new content is helpful and the writing is professional, it will be even better when expanded, edited for a broad audience, and more extensively cited.