User:JeTTblxck/Attribution (psychology)/A3341816 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

JeTTblxck


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Editing User:JeTTblxck/Attribution (psychology) - Wikipedia
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Attribution (psychology) - Wikipedia

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

You don't have anything for the lead of the wikipedia article and while going through and reading it, I did not find anything pressing to change. The content in the article seems to be original work with little forms of research to back it up. If you want, you could implement 2-5 new sources to the article and that would improve its validity in the things that are being said. This also could provide an opportunity for you to do massive changes to the article. The tone seems rather neutral making the article nice to read. I read your sandbox as well and I think that is a great addition to the article itself. The tone of it was neutral and it was easy to follow along with. The descriptors in your sandbox stuck out to me as well. The only thing I would say is to try and find some articles to help with that section. This article needs more of them, and I saw the statement you had at the end. That is a great start to improving the article. Also, inserting a picture into the article could prove beneficial as well. Overall, I think you are making amazing improvements to the article, and I am sure when the class ends and this assingment is finished you would have improved this article by at least ten times where it is now. Good job!