User talk:Waymond Wamano/sandbox

Observed Strengths: A. I think the overall organization of the page works very well and it was a good choice not to change that aspect of the page. The order of topics flows and makes sense. B. The addition of the "folk conceptual theory" is reasonable and interesting for the Theoretical reformulation section instead of the Recent evidence section. However, it is brief and perhaps more explanation or examples would be beneficial information. C. Solid addition/explanation to the Cultural differences section. D. Recent evidence: good introduction of more recent evidence and explanations (i.e. moral character, opposition to Malle 2006). I think this has non biased tone and presents evidence of other arguments.

Observed weaknesses: A. Although these sections weren't edited, it may be a good idea to look over the first 3 paragraphs of the page. The third paragraph, I think, is a little hard to follow and would be especially for someone without prior knowledge of the concept. Perhaps simplifying the introduction paragraphs would be beneficial to the page. B. Again, I know this section wasn't edited- but, the second paragraph under Background is repetitive from the introduction paragraphs. Perhaps the information can be solely in the intro, or solely in the Background section.

In general, great editing! I didn't find any spelling or grammatical errors. You all had a big topic to research and I think the most important aspects of this topic are covered.

Britclarke (talk) 15:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Observed Strengths: 1. I think the overall changes this group made were great and reasonable. They added more recent evidences (i.e. adding the opposite opinion to the Malle (2006) about the presence of actor-observer asymmetry), and explained more cultural differences for actor-observer asymmetry with supportive researches (i.e. Choi & Nisbett, 2008). 2. Moving the paragraph about folk conceptual theory from “Recent evidence” section to “Theoretical reformulation” section is a good idea, since it makes more scenes. But it would be better, if the editor group can add more detailed information like examples about folk conceptual theory. 3. The article is written in an encyclopedic style and conforms to Wikipedia style guidelines.

Observed weaknesses: 1. Under the “Cultural differences” section, the editors miss an empty space between the second period of the paragraph and the third sentence. 2. Under the “Cultural differences” section, there is one period before the tenth notation (small number 10) and one period after the tenth notation. I think it might be a mistake. 3. I think the paragraph of culture differences is too long. Perhaps the editor could split one paragraph into two paragraphs. It would be easy for readers to follow.

Overall, I think the editor did a very gob, since the editor added lots of information from reliable resources.

Zfgmzjyf (talk) 23:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I think that you've added some really great depth here-- the new references are thoughtful and well-integrated. These show good understanding of the topic and improve the article quality.

I have concerns about the writing style, however-- it is not particularly accessible to a non-expert audience and is often wordy and very academic in tone (especially in discussing the Kreuger and Critcher papers). That said, you've done a very good job of making neutral edits appropriate to an encyclopedia (notably in the section on culture).

Additionally, many references on the page are not cited. These should be added, or marked as "citation needed". Regretscholar (talk) 01:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Observed Strengths: A. Overall, I felt that you did well explaining any potential jargon and providing appropriate hyperlinks when necessary. B.The addition of more recent studies to the "Recent Evidence" and "Cultural Difference" sections seem both appropriate and informative. It is important to keep up to date on the latest research, especially since different theories have been presented to explain actor-observer bias. C. I felt you kept a non-biased tone throughout, properly used citations and added them when necessary, and used proper Wikipedia style.

Observed Weaknesses: A. I felt that the "Folk Conceptual Theory" addition to the Theoretical Reformulation section, while interesting and relevant, could use further explanation. The parameters for this theory that differentiate it from actor-observer asymmetry are mentioned, but without them being defined in relation to the study I am unsure of their meaning and implications. Thus, adding further exposition on folk conceptual theory and its relevant parameters would be helpful to understand its importance. B. While you did not edit this part, I thought the first part of the first paragraph of the "Theoretical Reformulation" section could use some restructuring. Specifically, the citation for the second sentence appears before the sentence end, which caused me to become confused at where "intentional behaviors" fit into the paragraph. I'd recommend rewriting this section to something similar to the following, to help the readability of that section: "This assumption turned out to be incorrect for intentional behaviors (e.g., buying a new car, making a mean comment), the class of behavioral events that people explain most frequently in real life (Malle & Knobe, 1997)."

Overall I felt you did a good job with your edits. All the additional text to the "recent evidence", "Theoretical reformulation", and "Cultural differences" sections all seemed appropriate and void of errors. I only noticed one typo, a missing space between "Errors" and "that" in the introductory paragraph. Otherwise I think further edits can be done to help with the readability of the text and understanding of the material, as I mentioned in the Weaknesses section above.

Psychryuken (talk) 02:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Observed Strengths: A. The expansion in "Recent Evidence" is a strong addition providing further perspective on the theory and continuing research it is involved in. B. Strong additions to the "Cultural Differences" section both in cleaning up the writing from the main page and increasing the amount of explanation and support for the section. C. Overall the organization of the page is clean and flows well through relevant ideas about the theory, and so I agree that nothing needs changed here.

Observed Weaknesses: A. While the addition that mentions the "Folk Conceptual Theory" is relevant and valuable information, it really only introduces that this theory exists which leaves room to expand on this. Suggestions might be how the theory came about or describe some support for the theory. Additionally you could expand in explaining the three key parameters of the theory to make understanding it more accessible to someone without a psychology background. B. In the "Recent Evidence" section it is stated that "Critcher et al. (2012) conducted two experiments" which is fine, but I've been corrected previously by professors to always call the work a study rather than an experiment to avoid any negative connotations of experimenting on people. Just something to consider.

In reading the page I thought that the edits were well done and follow the Wikipedia writing style in being clear and unbiased. The information added is all relevant and informative about the topic. Any further additions outside of the changes I mentioned could just be adding to the explanation of the cited studies.

Jrodgers010 (talk) 03:27, 28 April 2015 (UTC)