User talk:BGPO+VB/sandbox

Your potential edits look promising. In the next week, make sure you focus on specific aspects of the article and set realistic editing goals. Professorcravens (talk) 21:21, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Brett' Peer Review
Starting with the lead I think that there is no need to change anything. The first person to edit this did a good job. All the sections seem to correlate with the topic. The article seems to give an overview of the topic which gives information of political behavior but not a particular convincing viewpoint. It seems the article neutral and the purpose of the article is to inform. The sources not only pull from outside of Wikipedia but Wikipedia articles themselves which can be found inside the article which is unsettling to me. The references used in the article seem to be academic and relevant to the multiple subsections of the topic at hand. The sections are very well organized and I believe that there can be an addition of information for the sections of biology of political science and political participation. I would think about making a topic on external variables that have been studied and how they affect political behavior. Variables such as income, gender, and even how they affect certain issues. Even if gender has been mentioned it did not have enough information on the topic in my opinion.129.1.192.76 (talk) 17:56, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Katie's Peer Review
Hi there! After going over your edits on the theories of political behavior article, I think that you did a good job at adding updated, relevant information that flows well with the rest of the article, and it is organized well. Your source seems to be reliable and the data is very helpful at proving the points that higher education improves voting rates and younger children are more impressionable. Also, the grammar and spelling is correct and everything you added seems to be neutral and free of bias. Overall I think you did a great job.

Connor's Peer Review
I think adding more detailed sourcing is a good idea. Adding more information to what's already there is fantastic if what's there is good, which it seems to be. Using more data to give examples or expand on a concept is good. Confazz (talk) 20:26, 26 October 2018 (UTC)