User:Druss321/Popular psychology/Pocketsized24 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Druss321


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Druss321/Popular_psychology?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
Hey Druss321, here's a peer review!-Pocketsized24

Peer review

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * A new/updated lead has not been added yet. As you develop your article and before you submit, make sure you update it.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * I really like the information that you added about pop psychologists. The original article did not have adequate information, and the information added is very informative. It elaborates more on the subject. Keep on adding information that is relevant.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Three of the articles that are cited come from current sources. Source 5 though, is not from a current source. I am not sure how much information you took from that article, but it is from the 1950's. I would suggest searching for a more current resource.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * The information that has been added is relevant to the topic. There is room for expansion. Maybe add more information to the "current status of Popular Psychology."
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No- from my understanding pop psychology covers many different types of people and current culture.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, the content that has been added is in a neutral tone. My only concern is the wording of the sentence under "current status of popular psychology". "unsurprisingly" may not be how to word that sentence. The only thing that sounds persuasive.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * My only concern is the wording with unsurprisingly as mentioned above.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * I went back and looked at the original page and the information here does not seem to over or under represent. More information on the subjects could still be added.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, great job on keeping language neutral. As mentioned above I would fix the wording "unsurprisingly" and restructure that sentence.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * As previously addressed, the article from 1959 looks reliable, but it is very out of date. Other sources of information come from websites. I do enjoy reading VeryWell Mind, and have a teacher that references it every week, but I am not sure that that is the type of sources that Wikipedia is looking for.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * Source 1 only has 1 sentence associated with it. The source is short and the information is represented.
 * Source 2 is accurately represented. More information could be added to the article from this resource, it appears that there are multiple different topics and scholarly articles attached.
 * Source 3 is accurately represented. If that source is okay for Wikipedia as that concern has been mentioned. I think there is more helpful information located within the article.
 * Source 4. I am not sure how to access the information or where the information is located within the book. I am unable to analyze properly. I suggest putting your citation in the proper format and location of where that information came from.
 * Source 5, I see why you used this source. Is there more information that could be added about cognitive dissonance?
 * Source 6, information is accurately represented. Is there a wiki page that Carnism can be linked to?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Source 1 is not very thorough and is very short. Source 4 I don't have access to as mentioned above. Other sources are thorough and represent the information.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, all but the one that has been addressed several times throughout the peer review.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Could not determine if the authors were 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 have also found it difficult to find articles. I am attaching some resources that I hope are helpful.
 * DOI:10.1037/ppm0000246
 * https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41042-019-00021-8
 * 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?
 * Yes, great job at using easy to understand language that was concise. Fix issues as mentioned above.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * At the end of your first sentence under pop psychologist you may want to add a colon
 * A question mark needs to be added after your third bullet point under the same section listed above.
 * Still in the same section. There are some filler words that are used that could be taken out ex: do, any
 * In the psychobabble section there needs to be a period at the end of the sentence.
 * needs to be a period in Dr. Phil
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, you did a great job with the organization. The bolded paragraph under pop psychologist seems a little hard to understand and could use some rewording.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes, after referencing the original article the information that was added was in a section that needed improved. The information improved the article and added to the overall improvement of the article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * You have added several references to the article. The information that is added helps improve the article. As time progresses and the information progresses, I am excited to see what other information you add to the article.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * There are several things that have already been mentioned at the bottom that could be improved. There are some things that need to be hyperlinked if possible to match the formatting (I mentioned above). The references need to be in the proper Wikipedia format.