User talk:Pbary psych/Attribution (psychology)

Peer review
Hello, I have peer-reviewed your article. Ajr1234 (talk) 20:13

Peer Review
Peer reviewed your articleJshelby9 (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

In my response to peer reviews, I took Ctomm1999's advice and added a little bit more detailed information in the lead section. This was to give a more accurate overview of the article. I did, however, disagree that the historical information was unnecessary in the lead. I think it helped the flow of the lead as well as provide a necessary 1-2 sentence overview of the founder and instrumental psychologists. I also agree with Ctomm1999 that the In marketing and Communication section as well as the In sports and exercise section can be deleted. However I would like to keep the In education section and continue to add to it because I believe it can provide a good example and real world application of attribution that might help some readers understand it better. Pbary psych (talk) 23:21, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

As for other peers feedback, the general notion that I received was to add more sources and continue to do more research. Ctom1999 also gave similar feedback and said many of the current sources are old, primary sources, or require payment or special access to view. This is a problem and I plan on going through and hopefully finding alternative sources that are more up to date and free to access. Pbary psych (talk) 23:28, 8 October 2022 (UTC)