User:Positive not popular pysch/Flow (psychology)/Jkb0001 Peer Review

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


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:Flow (psychology)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Flow (psychology)

Evaluate the drafted changes

 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * The group flow section could be seen as a distraction and should include the criticism it has seen in the section itself.
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Some of Csikszentmihályi's parts of the articles seem to show some bias, but there just needs to be more supporting evidence for his thoughts.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * I would say that, while he is the founder, Csikszentmihályi's claims need to be better supported by other research.
 * Check the citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * The links work and they support the claims.
 * Is each fact supported by an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 * It seems like Csikszentmihályi takes up too much of the referencing. Like I mentioned, his work is very important to the foundation for this article, but more information is needed to support his claims.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added?
 * Using Csikszentmihályi's 2004 Ted talk seems to be out of date for such important information. Maybe including this as part, or a continuation, of the history section instead of mechanism could be better.