User:Leanna321/sandbox

Peer review edit summary
Psychologylearner1 I reworded some parts of the article using research terms to hopefully be more easily understandable for people who aren’t familiar with the language. I couldn’t really think of a way to describe the research without using the word association so I linked the wiki article to correlation, hopefully making the section more easily understood. I added a section about organic causes to address the neuropsychology of rumination. I agree about the lead not being concise enough, so I cut out some words that did not really need to be there to hopefully simplify it. I clarified that these two theories are noteworthy since they are the only two mentioned in the article. I honestly don’t even understand whether S-REF is a completely different model or part of another one, so I just chose not to mention it in the lead.

I also noticed that about the over a decade old sources. Unfortunately most of the available research on rumination seems to be based on theories from the 80s and not too much research has built upon what already exists. I agree that a section about social and cultural implications would be a valuable addition to the article. I wish I could find more research about that but unfortunately the number of sources about the topic seems very limited. I could only find primary sources about the relationships between rumination and race or culture. I could not find any secondary sources about stigma either.

I feel that the content of thoughts deserves its own section, but I agree that the article needed to be reorganized. I chose to put the “Content of thoughts” before “pathology” because I feel like the content is necessary to understand before reading about pathology. I moved “healthy self-disclosure” to be under “related constructs” but I’m still deciding whether it fits better under “pathology” like you suggested. I looked for some pictures of the measurements but I could not find any easily understandable figures. Most reflected results of studies done on the topic which contained some complicated information irrelevant to the article. I fixed all of the grammatical errors that I could find, most were regarding punctuation.

Alaynna2023 I clarified the section about the Repetitive thought/thinking questionnaire to define all the terms used. I also deleted a repeating part in this section to hopefully make the section less busy.

Sarahamc0714 I removed most of the in-text citations and replaced them with Wikipedia citations, but I did leave one which I was not sure if it was necessary to leave in since it had a “b.” I think it might be referring to a citation on the original page which has a, b, and c links. Personally I feel like the signs are covered in the type/content of thoughts section but I will definitely think on that suggestion. I agree that the “signs” already included in the article could be organized better or put closer to each other to make a clearer definition.

Thank you guys for the feedback!!!