User:Positive not popular pysch/Flow (psychology)/Filmfanatic88 Peer Review

General info
Positive not popular psych
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Positive not popular pysch/Flow (psychology)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Flow (psychology)

Evaluate the drafted changes
The editor chose a section of the article flagged as needing more information. However, the section of the article is about criticism and possible downsides of flow state. This editor is bringing up terminology and definitions. What they could do is find secondary peer-reviewed sources that explain the potential negatives of flow state. The article discusses how flow can become addictive and I immediately thought of activities like gaming where someone loses track of time. Then later in the section it discusses gaming some, but not a lot. Being addicted to a flow state while gaming (or another pleasurable activity) might cause a deterioration in health and self-care. The editor could contribute this type of information to the segment. As of right now, the terminology issues don't feed into the discussion of the negative side of flow state.

This section in the actual article is it inappropriately written. The writer is used author's names with et al. This type of writing is usually not seen on Wikipedia. There are portions of the section that sound like a literature review instead of an article. The editor has a major opportunity to clean this part of the article up and make sure it is written in the desired format for Wikipedia. They could go to those sources and rewrite those segments. A good place to start is a lead into the criticisms of flow. Currently, the article starts the section off with Csikszentmihályi's concern, but without a framing or introduction to the concerns of flow state.

The first source cited by the editor is an appropriate source, but it is from a sports journal. There is a sports section in the flow article, so citing this article would fit better in the sports section. There isn't a link on the 2nd source to click on to view. The editor also writes et al. in their contribution as if they are writing a research paper/literature review. Other parts of the section not written by the editor are also written this way. This is a good starting place to clean up the writing of the article as I mentioned above. The writing of the section is incorrect for Wikipedia. There is a lot this editor can do to help improve this section.