Jump to content

User:Rachelchaban/Big Five personality traits and culture/Amckin23 Peer Review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

General info

[edit]
Whose work are you reviewing?

(Rachelchaban)

Link to draft you're reviewing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rachelchaban/Big_Five_personality_traits_and_culture?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
Big Five personality traits and culture

Evaluate the drafted changes

[edit]

Lead

  • Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? - A new lead has not been added to reflect new changes. The lead sentence seems to be more about cross cultural psychology than the big five personality traits. I would use a sentence that explains the big five personality traits first.

Content

  • Is the content added relevant to the topic? -Yes so far I see that you've added new citations to existing info in the original article; for example the article "The Geographic Distribution of the Big Five Personality Traits" to support the statement under the "Lead" and "Controversy" section. Also looks like you've added a new section titled "Enneagram" ; however it's a little unclear how this ties into the article ; maybe you could focus on a specific area? Or maybe you could try tying into the differences between the two personality trait models.
  • Is the content added up-to-date? - Yes many of the articles you've added into the article are fairly new. The oldest only going back as far as 1999. Most of them are from the later 2000's.
  • Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? - I think if you were to give the "Enneagram" section two subsections it would be better. You could do one for similarities and one for differences.
  • Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? - Yes it does you are addressing how other cultures are underrepresented: English is expected to be known as the official language. People from different cultures perceive things in different ways. For example, opens is one of the big personality traits. It is when you use your active imagination, and attentiveness to inner feelings. In other cultures having openness could be frowned upon. I think if you were to talk more about different countries takes on the personality traits would be very helpful.

Tone and Balance

  • Is the content added neutral? - For the most part yes, for example when you say "Some additional controversy to the Five Factor Model is that this model is able to measure up to relating to personalities which implies that this most people think this is the best model. " by adding the part "most people" makes it sound neutral/ you're not making any insertions which is good.
  • Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?: Like mentioned earlier in the "wikipedia equity gaps" question, when you added information about the Big Five traits not being the best ways to measure personality in some countries. I think this was a really good contribution. Also you put examples of different countries that are not accepting the big five.

Sources and References

  • Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? - Some but not all. Here's some examples from your sandbox draft where I think citations might be useful to improve the article:
  • Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? /Is at least one of them a source from class reading or the "suggested sources" list? If not, can you think of anything we've read that might be useful for them? (*additional question from Professor Heinz*) Yes, and you are using sources from our class which is great! I would look for outside sources now. For example I would use the KSU library website to check out more resources.
  • Are the sources current? - Yes again you have a broad arrange of articles from the 1990s and 2000's
  • Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes, for example they is one of them written by a woman.
  • 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.) - All of the references were well written journals. I think your resources are great.

Organization

  • Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes it easy to read; I think just going back and reading out loud will help catch any conflicts/errors too.
  • Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Here are some segments that I think could use fixing, just my suggestions:

-from the section "controversy" : Some additional controversy to the Five Factor Model is that this model is able to measure up to relating to personalities which implies that this most people think this is the best model. consider changing "is able to" to can. Also changing "this most" into just most.

-could be just some researchers are: There are some researchers that are wanting to study if the Five Factor Model represents personality correctly since some researchers believe that there should be more or less categories involved.

-: correct pronoun usage( change to that suggests)- However, there is also some evidence which suggests that the Big Five traits were not the best ways to measure personality in some countries.

  • Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? - Yes it's broken down into sections/general headings and then with specific details. I think that the "controversy" body paragraph was perfect. I think you can work on the "enneagram" paragraph.

Overall impressions

  • Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?/How can the content added be improved? - It's a little hard to tell right now, I see you've added a few new citations and added a new section (Ennegream) but I think maybe just concentrating on this section and adding more citations to backup information will really help you focus your project while still improving the articles overall quality./ -Linking some of the important terms connected to home making might be helpful too! Like how this helps people understand the five personality traits. Also, I think it would be great to add sections in the body paragraph about each trait would make the article better. Even so, I think the article was great.
  • What are the strengths of the content added? Adding the "controversy" section was really key, it's a really central point to the big five personality traits. It gives insight that not every culture is the same. It also goes over how it's a problem that it only translates in English language.

Additional Questions

  • Does your peer have 5-7 reliable sources? You have 5 sources so far which is great.
  • Does the topic link in some way to our course material? Definitely cross cultural psychology is very connected to the big five personality traits which will be very helpful for you context wise.
  • Does your peer add historical context to their article? Yes, sort of. You do go into different cultures history with the big five a little.
  • Based on what you know from course content, what do you think Wikipedia users should know about this topic? In other words, what would you recommend adding and/or considering further? (*see "overall impressions" for my suggestions on ways to improve your article and how to continue your strengths).

-Asya

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Rachelchaban/Big_Five_personality_traits_and_culture/Amckin23_Peer_Review&oldid=1078338075"