User:Hraybin/Attention seeking/Armasa17 Peer Review

Hi,

Here's my peer review/feedback:

1. I think the potential causes section is a great place To get started because there aren't that many references in that section. I think that the claim that adults seek attention because of jealousy and because they feel threatened is unsupported. Maybe adding an article that supports this would be helpful here. Otherwise, I think that the article shouldn't really have that statement. Maybe even adding in something like "some scholars have argued that jealousy may cause attention-seeking," but of course you would need a reference to support this. I also like that you're including a reference that speaks to the fact that attention-seeking is under-researched. I would definitely state that in this Wikipedia article. Similarly, for self-esteem, loneliness, narcissism, and self-pity, I would want there to be references that show that these causes are backed by research. Also, I think that attention-seeking behaviors have a negative connotation to them, so I recommend mentioning that but also trying to maintain a neutral tone.

Another thought I had was that a lot of times people label suicidal behaviors as attention-seeking, so I would wanna mention in this article what CAN be considered attention-seeking and what is NOT attention-seeking behavior. Similarly, I think that I associate attention-seeking with children, and I don't feel like this article mentions that. So maybe mention how attention-seeking looks for kids vs. adults.

Also, the reference for self-pity doesn't really relate to attention-seeking as far as I could tell, so maybe that isn't a great citation for this article.

Under external links, there is an article that suggests that being a drama major or a drama queen is a sign of a personality disorder. I don't think that's something that belongs in Wikipedia, but maybe I'm wrong.

Lastly, I don't know much about the research in this area but I'm wondering if attention-seeking behaviors might be a trauma response? Maybe there's some research that addresses is this. Armasa17 (talk) 22:51, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?