User:CourtneyLynn33/Dispositional affect/Jwppfx Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) CourtneyLynn33
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:CourtneyLynn33/Dispositional affect

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? no
 * 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? no

Lead evaluation
It does not look like you have done anything to the Lead yet, but it looks pretty good already. Considering the content you are adding, I don't think its necessary for you to add anything to the Lead. but, if you really wanted to, you could add a sentence or two that briefly describes you new content.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? looks like it
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? a little bit

Content evaluation
I feel like you have found a lot of good new information to add to this article, but there are a few things you mentioned that I believe could use a bit more detail. The biggest being in the section about Dispositional affect in the work place, you talk more about the positive affect than the negative affect.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


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

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone of your article is very neutral, which is perfect. the only unbalance is see is the stuff I already said about the positive and negative affect.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? yes
 * Are the sources current? yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Does not have links yet

Sources and references evaluation
All of your sources and references look pretty good and current, the oldest being from 2003 and the rest from the past 10 years. You haven't set any links yet, but I think you have a lot of great places to add some in. such as, in the relations to other concepts section, when you mention the Big Five Model, Neuroticism, Extraversion you could like them to their respective Wikipedia articles.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? ish
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? no
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? yeah

Organization evaluation
In your section about Dispositional affect in the work place, the first sentence is kind of hard to read because of that long parentheses, I would suggest to take out the parentheses and fit it in as a sentence.

also, there is a section about positive and negative affect already in the article. you should add a little something to that about what you found, just to tie things together more nicely.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
N/A

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

New Article Evaluation
N/A

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
overall you draft is pretty good, the content you are adding definitely improves the overall quality, strengthens and makes the article more complete. One of the biggest strengths is how well the content relates to the rest of the article because there is a lot of stuff about the positive and negative affect most of the content new information about the positive and negative affect. The best way to improve your content is top make sure you talk about the positive affect and negative affect equally. when I first read this article I this article I pictured them as two sides of the same coin, you cant talk about one without talking about the other and it would look weird if there was more on one side.