User:SMMC2002/Excitation-transfer theory/Raiyaka Peer Review

General info
SMMC2002
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:SMMC2002/Excitation-transfer theory
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Excitation-transfer theory

Evaluate the drafted changes
LEAD

According to the sandbox, the Lead section has not been made yet. The user has an overview that better explains what Excitation transfer theory encompasses. However, this overview also needs at least one or two citations to back up the claims. The draft does explain the theory. But, based on the sections in the sandbox, it has not yet encompassed the section that are in the draft. Since the original article is so short, the user did expand and add a lot of things that are not present in the article. Overall the lead has a concise nature but can be more detailed as more content gets added in the sandbox.

Might want to combine overview and lead into one for this case since it needs to be detailed and concise

CONTENT

The added content ( Bolded sections) are relevant to Excitation transfer theory. The content added (so far) are all updated up to 2017 with citation [2] in the sandbox which was added by the user from their bibliography. The other sources that were removed in the sandbox was from older dates (which did not need to be removed, but may be needed for the changes in the draft), would be best to keep some of those already established sources. Since the draft is not complete, there are still a lot of things to be added. However, the user managed to add headings such as the "Conditions" heading to highlight the actual factors of Excitation Transfer that would otherwise be overlooked. Since the sources are all jumbled as of right now, the added content would be considered bias-leaning on first viewing. However, the additions included potential sources to be added after. The article does not deal with the equity gaps.

'''I think that Hedonic Assimilation and sexual violence could provide most of the content in the article when the final version of your draft comes out. Aside from the actual theories, maybe try to find sources beginning from the year 2020 for maximum relevance. There are alot relating to sexual violence as well. Application section could also be expanded very far with the right sources and language'''

(not much to be said here due to it being incomplete)

Tone and Balance

The user was careful in picking a content neutral language. But since the sources are not added yet, the claims would not appear neutral. The over/under representation is cannot be seen yet as the article is not complete. However, the added content provides more representation of the theory. The content added are objective to the point of information. The user has added an example section, the content in it was taken straight from the original article. No persuasive statements were presented in the draft so far.

With the sandbox being more developed, the tone and balance might shift, keep an eye on that

Sources and References

The user has included the content and sources that they're going to include in the draft at the bottom, as bibliography entries. The links and citations that are there did work when clicked and browsed, although i feel that some citations needed to be kept. The citations used in the draft so far are still up to date to the last 15 years (2012, 2017). Other sources are not present at this time. The sources used so far included a diverse cast of authors from different backgrounds and expertise. Be sure to cite claims to present an objective view of the article. The representation of groups can be seen by the sources that are planned to be added.

'''I see your reference plans in your sandbox and it fits the diversity criteria. you can expand to find other sources from the terms/experiments/hypothesis used in your original source (i.e Excitement Theory on Human Behavior or Two Factor Theory of emotion, a lot can be added since the article is so short) ,'''

I would also break up those big block quotes from the original article and put it in your own words

Organization

The content added so far is well written and concise. it has little to no grammatical or spelling errors. Sections are established, but no content is present within them at this moment.

As of right now, maybe change some of the big headings into sub headings to break up reading pace.

Images and Media

No images or media is present in the draft at this moment.

'''Maybe you could add Zillman since he's very prominent in the field and the excitation transfer theory chart ( search it up on wikipedia's database from sandbox). this will make for an easier read for others.'''

you can mention those concepts relating to the picture on the body of your article

Overall impressions

'''Very good sandbox direction wise. I think the final article could be a very strong one with your changes and additions. Your planned improvements could definitely be a "strength" of this whole article. I feel that the media you choose for this article would better emphasize the importance of this theory. good job.'''