User:SMMC2002/Excitation-transfer theory/Raiyaka Peer Review

Peer review Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects: Lead Guiding questions: Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Content Guiding questions: Is the content added relevant to the topic? Is the content added up-to-date? Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Tone and Balance Guiding questions: Is the content added neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Sources and References Guiding questions: Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Are the sources current? Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) Check a few links. Do they work? Organization Guiding questions: Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Images and Media Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Are images well-captioned? Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? For New Articles Only If the draft you're reviewing is for a new article, consider the following in addition to the above. Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject? How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles? Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Overall impressions Guiding questions: Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? What are the strengths of the content added? How can the content added be improved? Examples of good feedback A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved. Peer review of "Homemaking" Peer review of this article about a famous painting Additional Resources Check out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions.

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

SMMC2002

Link to draft you're reviewing

User:SMMC2002/Excitation-transfer theory

Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Excitation-transfer theory

Evaluate the drafted changes

LEAD

According to the sandbox, the Lead section has not been made yet. The user has an overview that better explains what Excitation transfer theory encompasses. However, this overview also needs at least one or two citations to back up the claims. The draft does explain the theory. But, based on the sections in the sandbox, it has not yet encompassed the section that are in the draft. Since the original article is so short, the user did expand and add a lot of things that are not present in the article. Overall the lead has a concise nature but can be more detailed as more content gets added in the sandbox.

Might want to combine overview and lead into one for this case since it needs to be detailed and concise

CONTENT

The added content ( Bolded sections) are relevant to Excitation transfer theory. The content added (so far) are all updated up to 2017 with citation [2] in the sandbox which was added by the user from their bibliography . The other sources that were removed in the sandbox was from older dates (which did not need to be removed, but may be needed for the changes in the draft), would be best to keep some of those already established sources. Since the draft is not complete, there are still a lot of things to be added. However, the user managed to add headings such as the "Conditions" heading to highlight the actual factors of Excitation Transfer that would otherwise be overlooked. Since the sources are all jumbled as of right now, the added content would be considered bias-leaning on first viewing. However, the additions included potential sources to be added after. The article does not deal with the equity gaps.

I think that Hedonic Assimilation and sexual violence could provide most of the content in the article when the final version of your draft comes out. Aside from the actual theories, maybe try to find sources beginning from the year 2020 for maximum relevance. There are alot relating to sexual violence as well. Application section could also be expanded very far with the right sources and language

(not much to be said here due to it being incomplete)

Tone and Balance

The user was careful in picking a content neutral language. But since the sources are not added yet, the claims would not appear neutral. The over/under representation is cannot be seen yet as the article is not complete. However, the added content provides more representation of the theory. The content added are objective to the point of information. The user has added an example section, the content in it was taken straight from the original article. No persuasive statements were presented in the draft so far.

With the sandbox being more developed, the tone and balance might shift, keep an eye on that

Sources and References

The user has included the content and sources that they're going to include in the draft at the bottom, as bibliography entries. The links and citations that are there did work when clicked and browsed, although i feel that some citations needed to be kept. The citations used in the draft so far are still up to date to the last 15 years (2012, 2017). Other sources are not present at this time. The sources used so far included a diverse cast of authors from different backgrounds and expertise. Be sure to cite claims to present an objective view of the article. The representation of groups can be seen by the sources that are planned to be added.

I see your reference plans in your sandbox and it fits the diversity criteria. you can expand to find other sources from the terms/experiments/hypothesis used in your original source (i.e Excitement Theory on Human Behavior or Two Factor Theory of emotion, a lot can be added since the article is so short) ,

I would also break up those big block quotes from the original article and put it in your own words

Organization

The content added so far is well written and concise. it has little to no grammatical or spelling errors. Sections are established, but no content is present within them at this moment.

As of right now, maybe change some of the big headings into sub headings to break up reading pace.

Images and Media

No images or media is present in the draft at this moment.

Maybe you could add Zillman since he's very prominent in the field and the excitation transfer theory chart ( search it up on wikipedia's database from sandbox). this will make for an easier read for others.

you can mention those concepts relating to the picture on the body of your article

Overall impressions

Very good sandbox direction wise. I think the final article could be a very strong one with your changes and additions. Your planned improvements could definitely be a "strength" of this whole article. I feel that the media you choose for this article would better emphasize the importance of this theory. good job.