User:IsabelGue/Social cognitive theory/Raiyaka Peer Review

General info
IsabelGue
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:IsabelGue/Social cognitive theory
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Social cognitive theory

Evaluate the drafted changes
Since you are only focusing on expanding the Application section of SCT, I'll tailor my Peer Review accordingly!

Lead - a new lead has not been updated since the user only focused on one specific section. This section of the review cannot be answered further.

Content:

The user is focusing on the applications of Social Cognitive Theory. They did a good job in expanding and providing more information about how it applies to the real world. The content added is up to date with the most recent content citing the year 2023. Alot of the information provided in the User's sandbox is great but needs more sources and citations to support their claims. The added content belongs in the article and flows smoothly. The article does not deal with Wikipedia's Equity Gaps.

(Try other books and other databases to strengthen your sources even further)

Tone and Balance

The content added is not very neutral due to the addition of phrases such as : " this is very important" and the like. Might want to change "our" language so it stays objective. The way the additions are worded might seem like it would convince people of the significance of SCT, adding a more professional tone to the language might make it less personal feeling. The application section of the article is more represented due to the User's contributions so far. the content added seems to be objective in explaining SCT but might appear biased due to the nature of application.

( This can be helped if you could put other citations/ sources to back up your claims of the capabilities, the claims are understandable but might want to avoid a reader asking " according to who / what" when reading your contribution, especially in the capabilities section)

Sources and References

Not all of the added content is backed up by a reliable source but should be an easy fix. the available sources in bthe user sandbox are relevant and diverse. The user did a good job in citing reliable sources but can do with more papers and research covering SCT. The links that are posted in the sandbox work in redirecting, and the citation links also work in displaying the full body of work.

(More sources from different mediums could help this article alot)

Organization

the added content is well written and informational. The sandbox draft has little grammatical errors that are pretty easy fixes, should avoid our language again. Sections well established but have no content to review so far. The ones that are able to be reviewed expands the section well to give the page some more context. Media effects studies section is developed nicely as well. Have sections that are repeated that could be removed to avoid redundancy.

( finishing up the sections of substance abuse and sexual content could provide strength to this article in a big way)

Images/Media

No images or media are added for the section that is focused in this User's sandbox but the section could do with some pictures. pictures could include: media violence representation and social media images from wikipedia's database.

OVERALL IMPRESSIONS

The section that was expanded added alot to the completion of the article, the breakdown of the capabilities could be a strong point if the right sources are added. This rings true for observational learning and modeling also, alot of research has been done on that. I see potential for a very complete article once the final version is out. Images of the research ( If its popular) could break down the pace of the article and avoid a giant word wall of information. Great job so far!