User talk:Cecethack/Facial expression/KatiePetti Peer Review

This is a fascinating article and there were several things that were done well. The article does a good job balancing research with its criticism. I think this is especially necessary because it’s a difficult field to conduct research in and much early research, done by people like Charles Darwin and James Lange, has been highly criticized or improved upon. I appreciate the sections on Sign Language and Eye Contact because they show how broad and complicated studies in this field are. Because research in this field dates back to 1872 when Darwin published his “The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals”, I would consider structuring the article based on a research timeline. This would also create an opportunity to add to the historical research done by Darwin and create a section dedicated to the James Lange Theory of Emotion, which is highly criticized but important and unique to this field of research. There is also interesting contemporary research done by researchers like Reddan who have attempted to create computer software that can read emotions. As you can imagine this was a huge challenge, and most software failed. Adding a timeline would make the article easier to navigate and would make it more comprehensive by creating opportunities to add historical and contemporary studies. I think the single most important thing the author could do to improve this article would be creating a timeline. The article I have chosen to review, “The Effects of Stress on Memory” ,and this article, do not have many similarities. Unlike my article I found this article to be approachable to most readers because it is not too technical. Although it’s missing citations in several areas it has a strong list of reliable sources. I will have to follow-up with the improvements this team makes on this article as I find this field fascinating.

Thank you all for giving me such great feedback. It is always nice to get feedback in a positive way, sometimes you don’t see what needs to be fixed or tweaked a little bit. Thank you again for taking the time to go over my article that I have been revising and giving such great feedback. I liked reading what you all had to say and will do my best to try and do the things that you suggested. KatiePetti - “ I would consider structuring the article based on a research timeline.” “It’s missing citations in several areas” I plan to do exactly what KatiePetti said, I think that it is a great idea to have a timeline. There has been a lot of research done on this and some dates back to Darwin so I think the timeline would help. I don’t know exactly how to go about this but will defiantly find out and add this to the article. It will defiantly help with reading the article and making it clearer. I will also be going in and try to cite the places that do not have the proper citations. I know there are a lot of good references, but they are not cited in the article. Gen Wood - “Overly detailed, I feel like it starts going into theories that come later instead of just sticking with what the article is about.” I will go in and try to revise the lead, to make it not go into too much detail too early and say with what the article is about. Sometimes I know that people tend to go a little crazy in the beginning, but I will try to revise that in my article. I don’t think there is very much else I will do to fix the article other than the things I have listed above. At least not at this time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cecethack (talk • contribs) 01:41, 28 October 2019 (UTC)