User:Michellevp16/Positive psychology

 Draft: 

The lead section defines the topic concisely and accurately. Nonetheless, positive psychologists, as well as other psychologists in general, make sure to define that their work follows scientific research. [1] Defining positive psychology as "a field of psychological theory and research..." allows the reader to understand that positive psychology is different from non-scientific pop psychology.

Current definition of positive psychology:

"Positive psychology studies the conditions that contribute to the optimal functioning of people, groups, and institutions.[1] It studies "positive subjective experience, positive individual traits, and positive institutions... it aims to improve quality of life."[2]"

Proposed change:

"Positive psychology is a field of psychological theory and research of optimal human functioning of people, groups, and institutions."

It is essential to note that not all topics touched on in the lead section are thoroughly presented or touched on in the rest of the article. The following is not present later in the article: Rollo May. A hyperlink is presented; however, if the rest of the page does not contain any information about Rollo May later, is it essential in the lead section?

Current:

"It builds on the humanistic movement of Abraham Maslow, Rollo May, and Carl Rogers, which encourages an emphasis on happiness, well-being, and purpose.[4][5]"

Proposed change:

"It builds on the humanistic movement of Abraham Maslow and Carl Rogers, which encourages an emphasis on happiness, well-being, and purpose.[4][5]"

I believe we could add someone that was part of the humanistic movement or we could add information about Rollo May.

Overall, this article allows readers to get a basic, clear, and concise idea about the study of positive psychology. The article accurately points out the research advances, applications, influences, and criticism found in positive psychology. Making sure the reader clearly understands the distinction between non-scientific pop psychology and positive psychology is the one major recommendation I would make. Other minor suggestions that would aid the reader to have an easier time understanding certain sections would be the simplification of certain wording and the addition of images.

 Peer Review Summaries: 

Sawyerbrady44:

The lead has not been updated because I am continuing to work on it. Additionally, the lead section for positive psychology was said to not touch on the major sections of the page; however, this is wrong. The lead touches on six of the seven main topics. The one that is not touched upon, which is the criticism section, is something I brought up in my sandbox and in my notes. Both the professor and this peer touched on my comment about Rollo May. Both believe keeping Rollo May in the lead section is beneficial. Yet, Rollo May is not even present in the two current citations at the end of the sentence nor reference section. Therefore, I plan on removing it.

As previously mentioned before, there is criticism present in the filed of positive psychology I have chosen to highlight in the Wiki page. One being that positive psychology is seen or mistaken with non-scientific pop psychology. The second criticism that needs to be highlighted is the equality gaps and underrepresentation present in positive psychology. The second criticism was highlighted in my notes yet not in my sandbox.

I have highlighted in my sandbox that images need to be present. I am currently looking for the best images that would allow the reader to have an easier time understanding positive psychology.

All in all, my peers comments on my sandbox have backed up my comments which have made me more confident with the future changes.

Cjaneellen:

My peer highlighted that I did not include potential information about Rollo May; however, I will not be adding information about Rollo May. Additionally, I am planning on removing Rollo May from the lead section since it is the only place he is mentioned. I will be adjusting the lead section to insure that all topics in the Wiki page are mentioned in the lead section.

MaddiMcg:

I believe my sandbox did have a weird format because my proposed changes ended up in the reference section without my references. Nonetheless, my draft provided the current state of the page and the proposed change. I will add the other new proposed changes soon.

Makylam18:

The comment on stating my sources for the new proposed definition of psychology somehow were not cited in the reference section. I have them. They are recent and reliable.

AngelOffley:

I appreciate my peer pointing out the sections I am currently working on involving in the lead sections. The sources I am working with are recent and reliable. Additionally, I will proceed with caution when citing my images. My peers suggestion on proceeding with caution when making the distinction between positive psychology and pop psychology is greatly appreciated. I will keep my writing clear and concise by making sure not to add or not add enough wording to the distinction. I also will revise the page flows and covers all the necessary points. As my peer mentioned, I am working on images that will facilitate the readers understanding of positive psychology.

Allysch:

I was surprised by my peers comments on the possibility of adding any new research topics. I want to add relevant research topics about positive psychology; however, I found it hard to pick out which topics without not leaning towards a bias tone. Nonetheless, I will look further into current topics that would add to the page.

All in all, the comments all my peers have left have helped me make sure I am on the right track to providing future readers of the Wiki page with accurate, reliable, and valid information in the most clear and concise manner. I am so thankful for my peers help!