User:Plizington/Elaboration likelihood model/WesDig11 Peer Review

General info
Plizingtion and Jordonmcwilliams
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:Elaboration likelihood model
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Elaboration likelihood model

Evaluate the drafted changes
Hi, I'm from Pitt-Greensburg University and was assigned to peer review your page.

I thought the overall complexity and organization of the page was really good. I thought the overall attention to detail and the context within the article was insightful and interesting. The diagram and pictures throughout the article adding additional insight to the theories and ideas discussed in the article. The article shows the central route and the peripheral route, these sections to me were fairly in-depth and I got a good idea/concept of what the central and peripheral route was. I really only have a few suggestions, one being the introduction/orgin section of the article. I think there needs to be more depth here. For example talking more about the founders, Richard E. Petty and John T. Cacioppo would be insightful. I think knowing a little more about their background can give the reader a better sense of how credible these people are. I did also notice that the studies were all the way up to 2021. I think maybe adding a small piece of recent information might help elevate the article. For example something from 2022 or 2023. I think that can make the article more relatable for other people reading and using the article in the future. One thing I can say I enjoyed was how the assumptions were broken up. Showing all 7 assumptions helped me understand the article and I think it was a good transition after the ELM side of the article. Overall, I thought the article was fairly good and with a few minor changes, I think the article can be elevated to the next level.