User:Pbary psych/Attribution (psychology)/Ctom1999 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
Hi Parker,

Because the article draft is a bit brief, I listed below some areas in your article that could use some additions/edits to give you some ideas for possible directions to take for the assignment.


 * LEAD
 * The Lead of this article is adequate. The first sentence gives the reader a basis for what the subject is about. History and baseline concepts about Attribution are also covered, which is good. That being said, there are some things that need to be amended.
 * Much of the content in the article, such as "Bias and errors", "Theories and models", and "Types of attribution", are missing. The Lead is meant to be a comprehensive (albeit brief), summary of the article's content, meaning every section of the article must be addressed here.
 * I personally feel that there's a bit too much information about the historical context of attribution in the Lead. This section is meant to be concise, so this more specific information is probably best suited for the "Background" portion of the article.
 * CONTENT
 * All of the information within the article appears relevant to the parent subject. That being said, I believe that the "In Marketing Communication", "In sport and exercise", and the "In education" sections can be deleted. These sections don't really tell the reader about attribution, but instead different ways in which it is used. Perhaps then, the information within these sections can be synthesized and added to the "Application" portion of the paper.
 * I'm not too sure of the relevance of the "Learned helplessness" section. The concept of attribution is only mentioned once, and even then the article doesn't explain how attribution contributes to learned helplessness or vice versa. I don't think these section needs to be deleted, just refined with more research and information. This also applies to the "Perceptual Salience" section that directly follows, although to a smaller degree.
 * Equity gaps aren't covered in this article. One suggestion I have when looking for sources is to see if there is research on how/what kind of attributions are made by different demographics.


 * ORGANIZATION
 * The article is already formatted fairly well. As stated already, some sections need to be condensed into other parts of the article rather than being given their own headings.


 * SOURCES AND REFERENCES
 * A lot of the claims found throughout the article lack proper citation. This is particularly evident in the "Bias and error", "Theories and models", and "Types of Attributions" section. I would review these parts to see what information needs to be sourced. If additional research on your end leads to no support for these claims, then they need to be deleted.
 * I would also review some of the sources found within the reference section. A lot of the material is quite old, paywalled, or comes from primary sources. Though deleting these sources may be unnecessary, I would advise you to look for more recent literature when looking for ways to create additions to the article.