User talk:Gen Wood/Availability heuristic/KatiePetti Peer Review

This article has a variety of well developed sections that are in good sequential order. I’m impressed with the Applications section the most because it gives readers an idea of why research in this area is important. The article does a good job presenting research without leaning towards a particular point of view, but the Lead is weak considering how well-developed the rest of the article is, and does not summarize the information contained within its sections, like Wikipedia recommends, but rather tries to define what Availability Heuristic is and gives an example. According to Wikipedia a good Lead should summarize that information contained within the article and give the reader a preview of what to expect from reading each section. After reading the Lead several times I’m still unsure what Availability Heuristic means or why it’s important. There is a good variety of sub-sections, like History, Research, Explanations and Applications and several of them could be developed more as they are all interesting and present the topic differently. I do not see any sections that are unnecessary or off topic, just areas that could be developed more. For instance, the section on Health was too brief, I’d like to hear more about any research done in this area. The author has saved the critiques section until the end of the article and I’m not completely sure why. The Ease of Recall as Critique section gave a brief summary, but I feel that more is necessary to help the reader gain an understanding of why that critique is important. I’m not sure if it’s the only critique available in research, or if the author intended to present it this way, but it seems to me that since research has been conducted on this topic since the 1970’s there should be more critical evidence available to present. I think the single most important thing the author could do to develop this article would be to write a well-developed Lead according to Wikipedia’s recommendations, or add to one of the subsections, like the Health category. The article I am improving, “The Effects of Stress on Memory”, and this article have similarities because my article is also missing a well-developed Lead and it’s very technical to read. After reading this article I’m impressed with the way the author states “In other words…”, as a means to re-summarize very technical information into something that may be better understood by the average reader.

Thank you for your feedback on my article. I appreciate the time you spent to let me know what you thought could use improvement and what you thought looked good this will help me improve my article. From your feedback I hope to improve the article. Katie critiqued, “the Lead is weak considering how well-developed the rest of the article is and does not summarize the information contained within its sections.” For this I will change the Lead and instead of defining Availability Heuristics describe the different sections contained in the article. Paytdaddy suggested that I find pictures. I think this would help readers understand the article better if they could visually see some of the studies done. Cece noted that there are sections that are in need of more information. I also noted this and plan to find more research in the health sub section or the business sub section. With this feedback I plan to improve the article and make it more aligned with Wikipedia standards. I intend to carefully read each subsection so I can improve the Lead knowing what is in the article. (Gen Wood (talk) 16:44, 29 October 2019 (UTC))