User:JasmineBriggins/Attitude (psychology)/Whitb05 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Jasmine Briggins


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Attitude (psychology)


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
In the article the lead does have a brief description of the major sections that are being discussed, but could have more detail about what attitudes are. Some information in the Jung's definition doesn't have citing and needs more clarity. I would say that the lead is very concise and understandable. The context that has been added goes with the flow of the article, but could be more punctual. Some of the history is missing in the article and could be talked about more. Some of the content is not up-to-date, some are 20yrs old. The content is very neutral in my opinion. Some information is underrepresented and could use more detailing. The article could have more creditable sources, it was not well represented. A lot of the resources aren't current, most are 12-30 yrs old. The article does link to discoverable sources. The article can be improved by adding the correct sources, being more detailed.