User:Pbary psych/Attribution (psychology)/Ajr1234 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(pbary psych)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pbary%20psych/Attribution_%28psychology%29?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Attribution (psychology)

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.)

The content added seems relevant to the topic and the content is up-to-date because the source for the sentence is from 2019. The information added does apply to gaps because attribution is not a subject that is studied in psychology. The information added has a neutral tone and doesn't feel like it is guiding readers to think in a specific way. All the information added has been backed up be a reliable source and the source is secondary literature not primary. The content accurately reflects what the source says and it is not copied word for word. The source is related to the topic and it offers more information about a section in the original section. The link to the source works and the authors do not seem to be very diverse, although one is from a minority group. The information written is concise and easy to read, there are not spelling errors, and the content added is well organized. The content that has been added is relevant to the section it is under and it offers new information.

The content added does not add to the overall quality of the article but it is a good start for improving the article. The strengths of the content added is that it offers new information for a very underdeveloped section of the article. Also, the information is easy to understand and it is cited by an appropriate source. Some things that could be improved are adding more information to the section about education related to attribution. When adding information for this section I would suggest finding the biggest points in the article that are not mentioned in the original article. Also, find sources that relate to attribution in sports may be a good idea because it is also a section that is underdeveloped in the original article. Furthermore, finding sources that talk about attribution in relation to criticism and finding whether there are different opinions about attribution in education and sports. It also would be good to include information about attribution in marketing communication, if this possible. The things that would improve the quality of the original article is filling in the sections that are underdeveloped with information. Overall, the information added is good there just needs to be more research and figuring out what information will be included in the relevant sections.