User talk:CME 13
Welcome to the Talk Page. Feel free to offer advice, suggestions, constructive criticism, or compliments. CME 13 (talk) 17:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi CME 13,
This is Dr. D. with comments about your articles. I have reviewed, briefly, the interesting articles you have posted to your queue and find these articles very doable: Ideomotor effects, Word superiority effect, Positive affectivity
Do not edit: Individual differences psychology has Already been selected by another student. There is less need to add to Freud's seduction theory, although you can do it if you really want to since there appears to be work to be done with it. If you are interested in Freudian theory, I would suggest that you pick a smaller piece of his theory that may not have had much coverage.
You have three excellent choices and 1 “maybe.” I suggest that you select one of those first three I cited and focus on it.
Thank you! WebFlower1 (talk) 20:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi! This is Jasmine, your peer reviewer. I would suggest you add a history of positivity affectivty section. In this section I would talk about when the term was first used and by who and how it has been applied over the years. Sorry the review formatting is like that. I tried to copy and paste and add spaces and that's how it came out,
Jsmn.smith (talk) 22:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
General Does the lead section provide a stand-alone concise summary of the article? See: Lead section and for an even more thorough treatment see: Guide to writing better articles. This article does have a lead section. I believe that once some headings are put into the article it will be more effective as a lead section because it will be separated from the rest of the article. I would explain in this paragraph that is a term in psychology that is used to refer to the extent to which a person feels enthusiastic, etc. Does the contribution appear to be cut and pasted from an existing source without appropriate citation? No, the article has working links for each external link and each reference has the proper number for it in the article. Each reference has the appropriate page numbers as well. Is field-specific jargon avoided where possible and explained where necessary? I.e., is the general lay audience of an encyclopedia adequately kept in mind by the author and student-editor? I was confused when the article went straight into talking about Watson and Clark and Tellegen. I realized that there are people who have done research on the topic but it would have been easier to follow if that was stated. Also, going into a more in depth explanation of the uses and terms of this topic would be helpful. Are wikilinks, i.e., links to other Wikipedia articles, provided where appropriate? Yes, there are some but I feel like there could be more links to articles on Wikipedia to describe terms in the article, such as PA/NA. Does the contribution maintain a neutral point of view, consist of verifiable statements, and avoid becoming original research/opinion? Yes. The article is very matter of fact. Are facts cited from reputable sources, preferably sources that are accessible and up-to-date, except those that are added to provide historical relevance to the article? Are additional references for further reading provided? There are no additional references for reading or watching provided in the article. The references appear to be very reputable. Is the contribution clear; written to avoid ambiguity and misunderstanding, using logical structure, and plain clear prose; free of redundant language? Yes. Expect for the repeated use on PA, which is unavoidable to a certain extent. Are the grammar, verb tenses, and spelling correct? Common mistake: multiple verb tenses throughout article. (Most of the topics of these articles describe past events, so use past tense consistently throughout. "The plaintiff argued...The defendant responded...The court decided..." NOT The Plaintif argues...The defendant responds...The court decides...") The nature of the topic doesn't really allow past tense. Is the page categorized appropriately? I would add some headings to help the article to be easier to follow. Subheadings would also help to break up the article. Example: Positive Affectivity Defined Research and Theories Watson and Clark Tellegen Applications to Everyday Life In general, are the reasons why the article topic is notable made clear, providing enough detail on important aspects, without providing too much detail on minor points? Yes. Are links provided to publicly-available versions of all primary sources, such as original articles? Are citations done properly? Yes. Are references formatted properly? Here is one example of how a reference for a law source is formatted: [1] Subsequent references to the same source then just need [1] and see generally Referencing for beginners. Yes, there are no duplicate references and they all have the proper Wikipedia formatting. Is the "educational assignment" template included on the article's discussion page? Yes. Specific Cite-check every reference in the article. That means, look at each reference and confirm that it supports the point that the article cites it for. Yes. Make sure that the citations are formatted in a consistent manner and that none of them are simply a bare URL. Yes. Once you are familiar with the subject matter of the article, try to think of a relevant aspect of the topic that is not covered at all or not covered enough and add that need and the need for relevant sources as a comment to the Talk page of the article. I did. If some aspect of the article could be better illustrated by adding an image (cc-licensed or public domain and available from Wikimedia Commons) then add that need and the need for suitable captions for the image as a comment to the Talk page of the article. I do not think an image would help in this article. 64.93.246.221 (talk) 23:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)