User:Chcam1/Positive psychology/Pocketsized24 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

chcam1


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Positive psychology (sandboxdraft has not been started)


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Positive psychology

Evaluate the drafted changes
Peer review

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * no, there is not an updated lead that has been written.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * yes, the original article does have a good leading sentence. Clear and concise, it gets to the point and explains the subject.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * yes, straight to the point without giving to much information away too soon.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * nope. The article was summarized well.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is lengthy, but the article itself is also lengthy. I do not see anything that should be taken out, simply due to the fact that the article covers so much material, and so there is a lot of information that needs to be summarized there.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * I think that information within the article is well written and relevant. My only concern is the section about the US Army. I just feel like there is too much information there.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * there are current sources that are up to date. I would suggest reading the articles that are up to date and seeing if there is information that has not been covered.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I am struggling to see how the section "The US Army's Comprehensive Soldier Fitness Program" fits in this article. The information on the section is current, but I do not think it fits here. Maybe the section could be cut back some? In the POS section it appears that a certain part at the end is maybe not a direct quote, but close to it. Could that be consolidated?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * I do not believe so.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * The content of the original article is neutral and factual. None of the information was persuasive in one way or the other. The section "role of negativity" gives examples of college professors' viewpoint. Could you find more information that is not just based on that?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * the section as mentioned above seems to be just a little heavy on one viewpoint. Could you find another author with the same information or even a different idea about it?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * As mentioned above the military topic is overrepresented.
 * The "development" could use some more information added to it.
 * Are there other religions that have influenced this type of psychology? In the section on influences in ancient history some religions are mentioned.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * My only concern is as stated above. The information in the article was neutrally written.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * No new content has been added. As I skimmed over the references many of them are scholarly articles that are secondary sources.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The articles that I checked did have enough information that was through and covered the topics.
 * Are the sources current?
 * There are 140 sources referenced in this article. Some of them are current and some of them are not. I think there is a good balance of dates within the article.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * I could not find many of the authors, but due to the volume of the citations I would say that it would have to be diverse.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * I do have some concerns about citations 58 through 66. I did not think that Ted Talks were appropriate for Wikipedia. I also think that they were not approDOI:10.1037/men0000160priately entered into wiki automatic feature. I would advise that you fix those citations.
 * I hope you find the following source helpful. These are from psycharticles.
 * Schnitker, Sarah A; Emmons, Robert A.  Psychology of Religion and Spirituality Vol. 9, Iss. 3,  (Aug 2017): 239-241. DOI:10.1037/rel0000133. I try not to go any older than 2017 but that is the earliest year that I can find within the parameters of year, topic, and literature review.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * yes

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * It is easy to read and understand. There are numerous lengthy sections. I would suggest going through those sections and determining what can be consolidated. There are always things that can be shortened or ideas that can be combined.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * no content added. I did not see major grammatical errors when reviewing the main article.
 * in the "flow" section need corrected to "These four states include the following" and "That is why flow is a positive experience."
 * in the "research findings" section, well being needs to be hyphenated in the second paragraph.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The content is well organized and easy to understand. There are just so many different sections and they are very lengthy. I would suggest reading through and determining if filler words are being used often.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * yes
 * could add images of maybe the films if that is not copyrighted? Books? just to give a better image about those things listed.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * yes

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * no content has been added
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * no content has been added. A strength of this article though is that it is so lengthy and there is so much information that is covered. Images are nice and good quality.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * no content added. As mentioned above there are a few concerns with sections. The article is very lengthy and I hope that new articles are not hard to find. I would read current citations that are already cited and see if they have information that was left out.

I am excited to see the work that you put into your article. I hope that this feedback gives you ideas on how you can start your contributions! I provided an article suggestion that I hope you find helpful! I have struggled with it and so I hope I could be of help.