User:Dawson Thornburgh/Machiavellianism (psychology)/Psychologylearner1 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

DawsonThornburgh


 * Link to draft you're reviewing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dawson%20Thornburgh/Machiavellianism_%28psychology%29?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Machiavellianism (psychology)

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead

-       The section that you are updating is mentioned in a roundabout way in the lead section, but I would like to see a better connection between the two. A quick sentence or mention of the results in age correlation attached to the sentence in the lead about the scores of the Mach IV test mentioned. The lead section also seems to be missing some key parts of the article, like any mention of sections 4 and down, though this is not your fault at all. It may be something you can quickly and concisely add. There are some added bits about the namesake in the lead that don’t necessarily need to be in the there, but more so might fit into a background, history, or etymology section.

Content

-       Your content is relevant and fascinating. The first sentence could stand some revising for clarification and probably needs to be sourced. I would love to see an extension of this section to add details about Machiavellianism in adulthood until death in comparison to how prevalent it is in kids, and maybe how it presents if it is different. The last sentence also is mildly confusing as I’m not sure who peers is referring to. I didn’t see very much, if any, information on demographics of this personality disorder in the article. The one section about the research on kids is about the only demographic info, so maybe think about adding data we have regarding prevalence and distribution. Through no fault of your own, this article does little to talk about populations that this affects and how it might be interpreted differently across those populations due to societal biases and such. That would be an interesting lens to view this article through.

Tone and Balance

-       The tone and balance of your contribution is very neutral and matter of fact. I think this is echoed throughout the article. The information is presented in a way that makes it pretty easy to understand but is objective. As I stated earlier, there is little cultural connection to maybe how these types of personalities influence or are influenced by society. I did see the “In the workplace” section, but it would be interesting to see a section on known figures that are categorized with this disorder if possible. I definitely would like to see a section that talks with cultural lenses on this disorder (is it more prevalent in some populations, are there correlations to poverty or survival circumstances, are these situations different?, etc).

Sources and References

-       Your sources are good sources, I would just suggest maybe finding sources that are more recent. Some are from almost 10 years, so there may be more up to date data available. The sources do accurately reflect the cited material and the sources seem to be incredibly detailed about the subject matter. While I cannot know if the authors are marginalized people, not a lot of the information within in the sources addresses those communities specifically. I do believe there are more recent and relevant sources available, but the sources are solid sources. The links do work for me. Yay!

Organization

-       I do think there are some organizational problems in this article, through no fault of your own. Here is how I would organize the sections: Lead, Origins of the Construct, Core Features, Dimensionality of the MACH scale (I think Game theory would be appropriate to add to this sections to expand on the MACH IV creation and trials; however, I would also love to see this section enriched with more readable insight about the test. I see it referenced in almost all parts of the article, but there is no part of the article that is dedicated to it. Maybe consider gathering all the random references into a designated section), Dark Triad, Relations with other personality traits, and finally In the workplace. The last section would Segway nicely into a cultural lens section. The article does include a few grammatical and spelling errors, mostly errors of not being plural when the sentence needs it to be. I don’t remember specifically where the errors are, I apologize, but I know they are there. Overall, I like the breadth of knowledge in this article, I just think it could stand for some expansion, added fluidity, and cleanliness of grammar. You specific addition is logically written, it gives you the run-down of trends then goes for more specificity after.

Images and Media

-       By no fault to you, again, there were little to no visual aids. I think this article has need and relevant information for images that would enhance the readers understanding of this topic. This article could stand to gain a picture of Machiavelli himself, as even though his relevance was mentioned, I would be interested in reading his Wiki page too to see why his source material was chosen to describe this disorder. I think it would enrich readers to see some sample questions from the Mach IV test if available, as well. The one image that is available was created by a user; therefore, it does meet Wikipedia’s copyright regulations.

Overall Impression

-       This is an incredibly interesting topic with a good, well-established article. I think the areas of improvement will only make the article stronger and more inclusive of relevant information. The added section of information though, overall, does not add much new information. It moreso added more details to a minute detail in the overall article. I would suggest you consider adding information that hasn’t been discussed but would enrich the article (the cultural lens sections or even something else). Your added section, though, does add value through clarification and conciseness. You’ve done well but I would ask you consider the suggestions mentioned. I wish you the best of luck!