User:Jaylaa20/sandbox

Article Evaluation

Good sources for Wikipedia are secondary sources such as meta analyses which evaluate various articles. Usually, primary sources are preferred for research purposes. However, secondary sources give a more neutral and well-rounded review of information. This makes it better suited for Wikipedia articles. Copyrights play a role when it comes to editing on Wikipedia, and violating them must be avoided. I never really considered the difference between copyrighted material versus material being plagiarized. You have to ensure that whatever information is added to Wikipedia is deemed public domain in order to use it.

In the Wikipedia article on reciprocity, there are many citations that are dated from the seventies. There is probably updated information on this topic especially with the growth in the field of psychology as a whole. The sections of this particular article are informative, but also scattered. I think there is a better way to make the article flow into each section of information while building on the other sections with different information.

I see a global evaluation of the article on reciprocity, but aside from outdated citations and sections out of order/scattered, what specifically would you do to improve this article (e.g., what sections would you move around and where, what types of citations would you add)? Liz