User talk:ThePhilosophyof9/sandbox

A few minor hyperlink errors I noticed where either only half the intended idea is hyperlinked or only one of two researchers are, for example "Kahneman and Snell" in third sentence. I like the thoroughness of your first section, but I am trying to see ways of trimming it down from 10 sub-headings. I know you mentioned some ideologies relating to Affective Forecasting overlap already "Projection Bias and Empathy Gap" and made that a point, but I think it would look cleaner if one or two more could be molded together. I think your grammar on new edits was impeccable and you added interesting and relevant information not seen in the previous article. I thought adding "Personality Neglect" to the Projection Bias sub-heading really gave me a clear definition. Your writing is accurate and informative while maintaining the Wikipedia style of being clear and concise. The biggest edit I would suggest making is trimming down the Overview section. This part should merely introduce us to certain concepts, and what I saw was more detail than necessary. There is no need for a sentence about "Immune Neglect" to be in there as it is addressed later. Other than that I thought you brought in great knowledge from our class lectures and articles and implemented it all very smoothly. Again, good job on your citations and clear & concise wording.

Robinsr7070 (talk) 03:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Overall for this sandbox, I think that the edits that were made were beneficial to creating an article that is closer to the standards that the WikiProject Psychology requested. A strength of this article and your edits is that it is extremely thorough in information and well organized. The addition to positive versus negative affect (line 72) was very well done and helped me better understand the differences in affective forecasting based on affect. The points you raised made the page less biased, which is important to the Wikipedia community. You also made the page more verifiable and professional. The set up of the page is pretty clean, and I like that this psychological concept can be understood in other applications and that those applications are placed near the bottom. I am split on whether have the ten sub headings under major sources of errors flows well, but after reviewing it, I think that it does a good job of explaining the different types of affective forecasting errors. One suggestion though is that the introduction comment under the major sources of error heading was a little confusing to me. This was already on the page, but I was confused about the cognitive versus affective processes. Perhaps the group can revise this to make it clearer or find another way to introduce this section. A weakness that should be addressed to improve this page is that some of the language used in the article may be too technical for this audience. I think that some of the language may be overwhelming for someone who does not have a background in psychology, such as in the overview. I’m not sure, but perhaps some researchers names are used when it may not be necessary or distracting to the page. Also towards the end in the improving forecasts section, the original article seems to have in text references that are formatted APA style and not Wikipedia style. Overall I think you guys did well as a group and I think that the content is well developed. If you go back and try to make some of the content less technical then I think it may improve the understanding of someone who may not come from a psychological background. Matthews8978 (talk) 05:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

This is an impressive sandbox. The article itself provides a wealth of information with many sub portions analyzing different situational affects of afferent forecasting and the different fields of study it relates to. The difficult part of writing a concise, helpful article with a topic covering so many dimensions is to prevent the readers from being overloaded or confused by how much information is on the topics. I'm a big proponent of following up major points with clear language summaries because they not only ensure the reader understands the topic but also make it easier to quickly learn the most important parts of the material. The edits on the positive vs negative affect section did exactly this. Minor clarifications were made and a wrap up summary was added. These edits helped make a confusing section come across more easily. The original issues your group is facing concern translating the material to the audience without sacrificing the professionalism and highly informational aspects of your page. The article could be improved and made more accessible to those reading by possibly grouping sections and continuing to include clear language summaries that get to the point of a topic. Since there are ten sub sections grouping these subsections may make the information more organized and reader friendly. You could possibly form groups based on whether sections are social, emotional, or cognitive in nature. Other than that I would continue the good work you've already done adding in summaries which should allow the reader to easily gain a quick understanding of a section in only a sentence or two. Approaching the article like you don't know anything about it may help give you ideas on making the information clearer and more understandable.

Brandojm (talk) 09:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The edits made to your sandbox are very well organized and provide as much information as possible in a concise and clear manner, in accordance with Wikipedia standards. Overall, the added content seems to update the article and explain some of the lack of information that was originally present. The strengths of your edits are in elaborating on missing or unclear information. Specifically in the positive vs. negative affect subsection you give clear examples of research in support of each side of accurately predicting emotional states (positive, negative, and both). You basically added to an almost nonexistent section and organized it in a very concise way. However, I think elaborating more through giving examples in the studies that would be easily relatable to readers, or implications from those studies, would provide a better understanding (especially if they have little or no background with cognition or psychology in general). I can see why you chose to add information in certain areas and it worked out for the best. Personally, I like the organization of the page in the way that it's easy to see the implications of affective forecasting through different aspects of everyday life so I understand your choice of leaving the organization to the original flow of the article. For further planning and just before finalizing your group's content edits, I would suggest reading through the article carefully, with the edits you made to get a better idea of how it will flow, and briefly explain some of the areas that look foggy from a non-psychology-student's perspective. This would give the article a final touch in helping the majority of readers better understand the prime objectives: the who, what, why, when, and where of affective forecasting and its implications.

Scalicoat (talk) 12:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Overall, these are very good edits. The writing is clear, concise, appropriate to the audience and generally neutral in tone (though in some cases you've removed more neutral language, e.g. "research suggests" instead of "research has found"). The edits improve the depth of the article and show good understanding of course material, though in some cases there may be excessive detail. As the other reviewers have noted, you might consider whether you could simplify the organization of the page.Regretscholar (talk) 02:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)