User:Dalia Arafat5221/Color psychology/MoonRabbit1992 Peer Review

I like what you've removed in the lead section. It makes me consider re-reading my article and make sure the lead section does not cover more than it needs to. Do you plan on moving the things you've removed to new or different sections? From what I read, it seems like you could possibly move them. I don't understand what Dr. Rahn meant by that sentence not being grammatically correct. It looks fine to me; I would remove contextually, though.

After talking with you on GroupMe, I now realize that you have made an addition, and I think it's a good one! You've used the required number of peer-reviewed secondary sources, and the other two sources also look good. The addition seems to be well-written, too. I suggest you bold, underline, or italicize future additions, so those reading your changes can see them and give you the credit you deserve!

Suggestions for other edits:

"Blue light causes people to feel relaxed, which has led countries to add blue street lights in order to decrease suicide rates. In 2000, the city of Glasgow installed blue street lighting in certain neighborhoods and subsequently reported the anecdotal finding of reduced crime in these areas. A railroad company in Japan installed blue lighting on its stations in October 2009 in an effort to reduce the number of suicide attempts, although the effect of this technique has been questioned."

These two sentences should be one after the other rather than split by a sort of unrelated sentence.

"One theory for why people prefer one color over another is called ecological valence theory (EVT) proposed by Stephen Palmer and Karen Schloss. This theory asserts that people tend to like or dislike colors based on their associations of the color to other objects or situations that they have strong feelings about. For example, if someone associates the color blue with clean water, they would be more likely to favor blue. On the other hand, people's dislike of the color brown could be due to associations of it with feces or rotten food."

Other than the first sentence, the rest of this paragraph is not cited and seems almost like the author's interpretation of EVT rather than factual or sourced material. I would review it.

"A light’s warmth or coolness can be described by its color temperature. The Kelvin scale is used to quantify the color temperature spectrum. These numbers are used to characterize the hue of artificial light. Since each person has their own unique method of perceiving color, there are a variety of color temperatures that will work well for certain tasks. Neutral and soft white is a friendly and clean light best for kitchens and bathrooms or any kind of workspace; cool light is adequate for offices, hospitals, and other commercial uses; and warm light creates a cozy, calm, inviting atmosphere that is ideal for bedrooms, living rooms, family rooms, dining rooms, and other spaces requiring an intimate, personal mood. "

There is an arrow between these two words in the original article. It did not copy-and-paste over, but I still do not understand why it's there.

"A study on logo color asked participants to rate how appropriate the logo color was for fictional companies based on the products each company produced. Participants were presented with fictional products in eight different colors and had to rate the appropriateness of the color for each product. This study showed a pattern of logo color appropriateness based on product function. If the product was considered functional, fulfills a need or solves a problem, then a functional color was seen as most appropriate. If the product was seen as sensory-social, conveys attitudes, status, or social approval, then sensory-social colors were seen as more appropriate. Companies should decide what types of products to produce and then choose a logo color that is connotative with their products' functions."

Author's opinion?

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

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.)