User:Gale Winters/Social judgment theory/Jordonmcwilliams Peer Review

Overall I think the article has a solid base. The description of the theory is simple but effective, it was easy to understand but not too vague. The overview is also strong, I feel it sets up the rest of the article well. However, the rest of the sections while a good start could use more information. They all have good information already in them, they just need more added. There are a good bit of recent studies, but maybe some more research or examples could help the reader conceptualize some of the other sections, such as Assimilation and Contrast. The simulations section with the study on Swiss citizens is a great example of this in my opinion. The actual "recent studies" section is definitely one of the strongest parts, but it could benefit from some research from this year or the past year. Only one of the four studies actually mentions when it's from, the others just say "recent study", or nothing at all. They also tend to list who conducted the study, but not who those people/organizations are. What makes them qualified to talk about the subject? This would for be important information for the reader to know, and could also add more credibility. Again, I do think overall it is a good starting point, it really just needs more information.

General info
(provide username)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * 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.)