User:Yasminasavalescu/Personality change/Bdl2006! Peer Review

General info
Yasminasavalescu
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Yasminasavalescu/Personality change/Bibliography
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Personality change

Evaluate the drafted changes
Leads


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * The lead has not yet been updated.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The lead doesn't have an introductory sentence that describes the articles topic. You should start it out with a clear statement about personality change across a humans lifespan.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No, they do not have a description of the articles major sections. This would drastically improve the readers understanding of the article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes. the lead does include information that is not present in the article such as the audience, doctors and psycologists. Also talking about the use of charts and graphs.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is a little detailed but could improved by adding more key points from the article.

Content


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes both article seem to be relevant to the topic. Talking about the 5 big personality traits. They both talk about how your personality changes throughout your lifespan, and how life events impact your personality.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * The content is from 2018 and 2024, so pretty up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I think there isn't content missing, but you have to make sure when uploading it to wikipedia you make sure that the information 100 percent alligns with the topic.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Both articles help address the equity gaps by giving the reader insight into personality traits across different cultures and life stages. It doesn't directly address topics related to historically underrespresented populations or topics, could talk more about the LGBTQ and ethic minorites.

Tone and Balance


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes the content added is neutral, talking about personality traits and information from the article.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No there doesn't seem to be any heavily biased claims towards an particlular position.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * The viewpoints are mainly just information on the perspective of each article. Which is mainly just personality traits across different cultures and the impact of life events.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, as I said there isn't any sides to this article, just stating information.

Sources


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes all the content is backed up by the articles.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) Yes, the content relfects what the cited sources say.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, the sources reflect the topic very well.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes 2018 and 2024
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized
 * individuals where possible?
 * Yes, they all have different authors and lots of secondary sources. yes they include historically marginalized individuals where possible.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * After I looked up wikpedia pages that correlated to the topic I found there articles that were piked are a great option.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes they do work

Content


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * There content is well written and easy to read. They are very clear when talking about the information, bringing up good points talked about in the articles.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * I did not see any spelling errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * I felt as if the content was well organized, with different questions and topics in different paragraphs. Made it fairly easy to understand and read.

Images


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No the main article doesn't have any images on it. This would help the readers experience, maybe helping them understand more information.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * No images
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * N/A

Overall, I think this is a really good start. This will help you get new information in to your main article and hopefully make it better.