User talk:Carlton7567/sandbox

Peer Review 1: Control

General info Whose work are you reviewing? Carlton7567 Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Carlton7567/sandbox Lead

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The revisions to the article appear to elsewhere. Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead seems to be concise and provide enough detail Lead evaluation Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, the content added to the Perceived control section and Cognitive control section is relevant. Is the content added up-to-date? References 2 and 4 from Perceived Control are up to date but reference 3 is from 1987. Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The content seems relevant. May consider adding an explanation or hyperlink of the term "locus of control" from the perceived control section. Content evaluation Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral? The content is neutral. Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No heavily biased comments Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No overrepresented or underrepresented comments Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? The content is neutral and does not attempt to persuade Tone and balance evaluation Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, there are references for new content. Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The sources look thorough Are the sources current? It looks like there is a problem with date values on reference 8. Check a few links. Do they work? The links work. Sources and references evaluation Organization

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? yes Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? I did not notice any. Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?Yes it is organized in a way that makes sense Organization evaluation Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The added information does improve the overall quality. The original article does not have much explanation regarding the different types of control. The user has done a good job of building out the different section perceived, cognitive and inhibitory control. What are the strengths of the content added? The strengths are building out the different types of control sections and supporting the sections with references. How can the content added be improved? The content added can be improved by adding links to the wikipedia articles for certain terms that are referenced. Like in inhibitory control the area where ADHD, OCD, etc is referenced. --AnhrUVU (talk) 17:41, 19 October 2019 (UTC)