User:Slicesofky/Affect (psychology)/Ctom1999 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Sliceofky


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Slicesofky/Affect_%28psychology%29?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Affect (psychology)

Evaluate the drafted changes
Hi Ky,

If you're looking for directions you could go in for creating a draft, below I've listed some ways that you can add additions to the article.


 * LEAD
 * As it stands now, the Lead for the article is much too brief. Disregarding the fact that it is only one sentence in length, it leaves out almost all of the information covered in the article itself. Because the goal of the Lead is to provided a thorough, but concise, summation of an articles content, I would suggest adding sections that cover psychometric measurement, Non-conscious affect and perception, arousal, and so on.
 * The use of two images in the lead is also a bit distracting. I think deleting one (or moving it to a different section of the article) would alleviate this issue.
 * CONTENT
 * While the content is sufficient as is, I think more could be added to cover equity gaps in research. For example, in the "Main research findings" and "Clinical applications sections", is there any research on affect that effects particular subsets of people? College students are discussed briefly, but are there other demographics that have interesting or unique findings in this regard as well?
 * ORGANIZATION
 * The overall organization of the article makes understanding the content quite difficult in my opinion. This issue is also bolstered by the Lead being so brief, as readers are not primed for terms and concepts that appear in the rest of the article. For many of the sections, it seems as though they are placed and ordered without regard to flow and pacing. Some sections, like "Relationship to behavior and cognition" and "Instinctive and cognitive factors in causation and affect", may be better suited to be one section that covers both topics.
 * The "Dimensions of affect", "Affect display", "Affects", and "Affect Tolerance" sections need to be reordered. Having the "Affect" section (which explains explains what affects in psychology) come after both the "Dimensions of affect" and "Affect display" sections (which explains how affects effect different mental systems) makes understanding these concepts challenging for readers. I would suggest making "Affect" the first section, followed by "Dimensions of affect", "Affect display", and "Affect Tolerance". Conversely, "Affect" could be turned into a heading, with all the relevant information and the other three sections falling under it.
 * The "History" section should probably be placed at either the beginning or end of the article body. As it stands now, it damages the articles flow by being placed in the middle, especially considering that both the preceding and following sections aren't discussing background information, but rather psychometric measures and cognitive factors.
 * SOURCES AND REFERENCES
 * Some of the sources listed in the article are very dated. One study in particular goes as far back as 1989. One suggestion I would make as you're making additions to your draft is to find more recent articles for your citations.
 * In the current article, some of these claims are cited with parenthetical citations (and inaccurate ones at that). Because Wikipedia doesn't do in-text citations this way, you can go ahead and delete them.
 * Many of the citations in this article list primary sources. Wikipedia suggests the use of secondary literature to reduce bias, so going in that direction when searching for sources would be helpful.
 * Many of the links in the references page appear either broken, links to risky sites, or are paywalled. I would comb over the References sections to make sure things are in working order.