User:Med20a/Social cognitive theory/Bec1970 Peer Review

General info
(provide username)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?
 * - I am reviewing user's Med20a, jtm20dc, and Haleymackinnon.


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Med20a/Social cognitive theory ::Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Social cognitive theory:

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.)

Lead = The draft did not provide a Lead yet

Content

'''- Yes, the content is relevant to the topic. The Sandbox has content related to the History of Social Cognitive Theory, starting from early books and latter revisions. There is also an overview of behavioral factors that is related to Social Cognitive Theory.'''

'''- Yes, the content that is added is up to date. I can see through the references that all three are from 2023.'''

'''- I think for the "overview" section there is content that is missing as the original "overview" section is three paragraphs in length and the sandbox is only two sentences long. I am sure there is more information to find! All the content I see if relevant, so there is no content that does not belong in the sandbox.'''

- This is not an article dealing with one of Wikepedia's equity gaps or underrepresented populations or topics.

Tone and balance

'''- Yes, the content that is added is neutral. It is strictly fact-based.'''

- There are no claims that appear heavily biased toward any position.

'''- I think the overview of behavioral factor is a little underrepresented. Maybe the writers could add one or two more examples to thoroughly explain.'''

'''-No, the content is not to persuade the reader in any direction. The writers did a good job of just writing based on facts with current references.'''

Sources and References

'''- I do not see any citations to back up the content from the overview of Behavioral Factors. The first section also has some sentences that do not provide citations.'''

- Yes, when looking at the sources I saw that the information does reflect what is said on the cited sources.

'''- I think the sources are pretty thorough. Two are journals that hold good information.'''

'''-Yes, sources are current. The bibliography show they are from 2023.'''

'''- i looked up the authors and it does seem that it is a diverse spectrum of authors. I only see one author per article though.'''

- Yes, i think a peer reviewed article from a database could better replace the short website article that is the second reference.

'''- yes, the links work. From the references links, two lead straight to the abstract.'''

Organization

'''- Yes, the content is well written. I do feel it was clear and easy to read. I understood it well.'''

- From reading, I did not catcha ny grammatical or spelling errors.

- There are two sections that separate the topics well.

Images and Media= There was no images or media provided.

This is also NOT a new article.

Guiding Questions

- The History section is very similar to the history section in the original article, so there was not much technical improvement.

'''- The strengths include concise language and information. There are interesting facts that are written well.'''

'''- The content can be improve by adding new information not already on the original Wikipedia article. Also, there can be improvement in length and thoroughness of information on the second section. '''