User:Hayleeelmore/sandbox

'''Peer Review 1 Lucid Dreaming

Share the Love:

1. First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way? - The history and scientific research sections are very good. They go into a lot of detail and help us as readers to understand a topic that isn't super familiar. The article was described in a clear way and nothing seemed to confuse me or seem out of place. 2. What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? - I personally wanted to see more added to the risk section of the article. There was only one sentence in this sections and I think that if more examples were added and ideas of what risks are, it would help readers understand lucid dreaming on a deeper level. 3. What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? - The most important thing that the author could do would to be add more to the risks section to understand this topic better. 4. Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know! - The history and definition sections were great and helped me understand to origin and what lucid dreaming really is. I want to incorporate that into the article I'm working on so readers can understand better the backgroud and meaning of my articles topic.

Peer Review Letter: This article did a very good job of defining, giving the history of, and research about lucid dreaming. The article was presented in a way that was organized and easy to follow. It was a good length that included information that was important and interesting. While reading, I never felt like the author was trying to sway my opinion on lucid dreaming one way or the other. The article held an unbiased opinion and presented other opinions in the alternaive theories section. The information presented in this article was easy to understand and helped deepen my understanding of lucid dreaming in a way that helped me form my own opinion. The one improvement that I would suggest is adding more to the risks section. By doing this, it will help readers develop a deeper understand of lucid dreaming and how it can effect people. This article was great and interesting to read, overall, very good job!

Follow Their Lead:

1. Looking at the lead by itself, do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic? - From the lead itself I am able to gather what lucid dreaming is but, that is it. There could be more added about what is going to be talked about in the article and why it is important. 2. Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information? - The lead reflects what is talked about in the definition section but, not much else in the article. 3. Does the lead give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? Is anything missing? Is anything redundant? - I think that the lead gives more weight toward the definition section because that is all it talks about. There could be things added about the rest of the article such as, history or risks that could make the lead stronger. There is nothing that is redundant.

A Clear Structure:

1. Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)? - The sections are organized well and in a order that makes sense. The only section that I felt that was out of place a little was the risks and popular culture sections. If those two sections were switched (risks before popular culture) I think that would make a little bit more sense but, other than that the sections were organized great.

A Balancing Act:

1. Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? Is anything off-topic? - The sections lengths seems to fit the importance of the article. It isn't too long or too short except for the risks and popular culture sections. There is nothing that seems off topic to me. All sections were relevant and helped gain a better understanding of lucid dreaming. 2. Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing? - The article does show all perspectives through the alternative theories sections. This was a good section to help see different viewpoints and develop your own opinion without making the article bias. I do not believe that there were any viewpoints left out. 3. Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? - Conclusions were not drawn and do not try to convince the reader of one viewpoint. The alternative theories section was what helped with this the most.

Neutral Content:

1. Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article? - The article does a good job of not showing any bias so, I was not able to guess the perspective of the author. 2. Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral? For example, "the best idea," "most people," or negative associations, such as "While it's obvious that x, some insist that y." - I did not come across any phrases that were biased. 3. Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..." - From reading this article I was not able to see that any claims about people or groups were made. 4. Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? Remember, neutral doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic. - Once the article risks section has some things added to it I believe that it will help even out the positive and negative information given.

Reliable Sources:

1. Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors? - From what I saw and checked the sources were all connected to a reliable source. 2. Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it may lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view. - No, the statements had many sources that didn't show one single point of view. 3. Are there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you can't find stated in the references? Just because there is a source listed, doesn't mean it's presented accurately! - I did not find any unsourced statements and I was able to find all the sources in the references.

Peer Review 2 Decay Theory

Share the Love:

1. First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way? - The article does well presenting a lot of information in a concise and understanding way. Everything was clear and was presented well. 2. What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? - The only thing that I would improve is trying to explain what decay theory is in a simpler way that people that are not familiar with this could understand. I was able to understand but, it was a little complex. 3. What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? - I think the most important thing to do would be to explain decay theory in a simpler way and expand on it so more people are able to connect with and understand the article more from the beginning. 4. Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know! - The history section of this article is great and concise. That is something that I want to implicate in my own article.

Peer Review Letter: The article did a good job of explain what the decay theory was and did a very good job at setting up the article. All the sections flowed together and were in an order that made sense. The information made sense but, could have been more simplified when explain the definition so readers can understand more about what the decay theory is. Something that could be improved is adding more about the decay theory in general. The lead makes you believe that the article will be talking all about the decay theory rather than just the inconsistencies which is what I felt like the article was mostly about. Adding more good things about the decay theory would help balance out the article to make room for readers to form their own opinion rather than having mosts the article focus on the inconsistencies of this theory. I really did enjoy this article and the topic was difficult and was explained well. I want to be able to implement how well the sections were organized and information was presented in my own article. Good job!

Follow Their Lead:

1. Looking at the lead by itself, do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic? - Looking at the lead I was able to see the importance of this topic. The only thing that would be better would be to simplify it just a little bit and then it will help readers the understand from the beginning. 2. Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information? - The lead does a very good job of reflecting the important information. The onlt thing I noticed is that the article focuses a lot on the inconsistencies of this theory rather than how it works so, the lead should reflect that more if that is where the article is heading. 3. Does the lead give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? Is anything missing? Is anything redundant? - It gives more weight to the definition of decay theory but, doesn't talk a lot about the inconsistencies which is what most of the article is about.

A Clear Structure:

1. Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)? - I think that all of the sections are organized very well. The way the sections were presented, I believe, made the most sense and each section flowed into the next.

A Balancing Act:

1. Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? Is anything off-topic? - I think that the length is not quite equal to the importance of the articles subject. The article is talking about inconsistencies in the theory not necessarily on what the theory is, what it is intended to do, and how it works. 2. Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing? - The article does reflect all the perspectives but, I found that it weighs more heavily toward the inconsistencies rather than the good things. If more was added about the theory and how that helps people it could help even out the good and bad of this theory. 3. Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? - I don't think that the article is trying to convice readers of a specific viewpoint but, I do think that the article weighs more heavily toward inconsistencies which could lead people to lean toward that end of the theory rather than the other end.

Neutral Content:

1. Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article? - I could guess that the author is against the decay theory because most of the articles focuses on the inconsistencies of it. 2. Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral? For example, "the best idea," "most people," or negative associations, such as "While it's obvious that x, some insist that y." - There were not any phrases or words that made the artice feel bias. 3. Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..." - I did not find any claims about other groups of people that would be bias. 4. Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? Remember, neutral doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic. - The article does focus on the negative information more than the positive. The article did remain neutral in wording and sources but, adding more about the positive things of the theory would help the articles reliabilty because we are given equal amounts of good and bad about this theory.

Reliable Sources:

1. Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors? - Yes, the statements in the article do have reliable souces connected to them. I did not find any sources that were blogs or self-published authors. 2. Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it may lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view. - There were one or two sources that I found that were cited multiple times but, other than that they were good sources. 3. Are there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you can't find stated in the references? Just because there is a source listed, doesn't mean it's presented accurately! - I did not find any unsourced statements in the article.

Peer Review 3 Creative Problem-Solving

Share the Love:

1. First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way? - The sections are organized in a way that flows and is easy to follow. Also, the article does not try to persuade the reader in any way. 2. What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? - I would suggest adding quite a bit more information to this article. It is very simple right now and doesn't give a lot of information to go off of. This would help readers understand more about what Creative Problem-Solving is. 3. What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? - The most important thing would be adding more information with sources/references that help readers understand this topic more. 4. Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know! - I noticed that the article was very unbiased and allows readers to form their own opinions on the subject which is very important and I am trying to implement that in my article as well.

Peer Review Letter:

This article has a good backbone to start from and is unbiased. The sections are organized in a way that is easy to understand and makes sense. There are a few things that I would suggest to make it better. More sources from journals and textbooks would add a lot of important unbiased information to this article. Adding more information would help this article as well. It is very short and there could be many things added to it. There are some sources that are used multiple times and some sources links do not work so, fixing those would be great for this article. In all, this article is a great place to start and can be a really good article with more information and unbiased sources added. Good job!

Follow Their Lead:

1. Looking at the lead by itself, do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic? - The lead does a good job of telling us what Creative Problem-Solving is but, it doesn't tell us much more than that. Adding more to the beginning that will be talked about in the article could help readers know the importance of the topic. 2. Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information? - It does tell us what Creative Problem-Solving is which is important but, doesn't reflect the rest of the information that is given in the article which is very important. 3. Does the lead give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? Is anything missing? Is anything redundant? - It does give more weight to the definition but, doesn't mention much else. Nothing in the lead is redundant.

A Clear Structure:

1. Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)? - The sections are organized well and in a good order that makes sense.

A Balancing Act:

1. Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? Is anything off-topic? - Each section's legnth is equal to its importance. There was one reference made to a tv show that I thought seemed a bit unnecessary and off-topic. 2. Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing? - From what I read I noticed that only one perspective was given and represented in the article. Opposing viewpoints as well as more information could be given. 3. Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? - I don't think that the article trys to convice the reader one way but, only one viewpoint is given so it is hard for the reader to develop their own opinion on the topic without an opposing viewpoint.

Neutral Content:

1. Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article? - I don't think I could guess the authors perspective but, it does not give any opposing viewpoints. 2. Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral? For example, "the best idea," "most people," or negative associations, such as "While it's obvious that x, some insist that y." - There were no words or phrases that didn't feel neutral, which is good. 3. Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..." - There were no claims made about unnamed groups or people. 4. Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? Remember, neutral doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic. - The article only focuses on the positive information. An opposing viewpoint(s) should be given in order for a reader to develop an opinion of their own rather than just getting one side of the story, per say. Reliable Sources:

1. Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors? - I noticed that some statements connected to a reliable source but, there were also some that were from blogs or the link did not work. 2. Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it may lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view. - I did notice that there was one article that was referenced a couple times which would mean that the article is relying too heavily on one single point of view from one person. 3. Are there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you can't find stated in the references? Just because there is a source listed, doesn't mean it's presented accurately! - There were a few statements that I saw that did not have a reference that I think should have. There needs to be a reference for those statements to increase the reliability of the article.