IsabelGue
| This user is a student editor in Cal_State_Fullerton/COMM_500_Theory_and_Literature_of_Communication_(Fall) . |
Welcome
editHello, IsabelGue and welcome to Wikipedia! It appears you are participating in a class project. If you haven't done so already, we encourage you to go through our training for students.
If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Please also read this helpful advice for students.
Before you create an article, make sure you understand what kind of articles are accepted here. Remember: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and while many topics are encyclopedic, some things are not.
Your instructor or professor may wish to set up a course page, and if your class doesn't already have one please tell your instructor about that. It is highly recommended that you place this text: {{Educational assignment}} on the talk page of any articles you are working on as part of your Wikipedia-related course assignment. This will let other editors know this article is a subject of an educational assignment and aid your communication with them.
We hope you like it here and encourage you to stay even after your assignment is finished! Jprg1966 (talk) 21:53, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Welcome!
editHello, IsabelGue, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with Wiki Education; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.
I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.
Handouts
|
|---|
|
Additional Resources
|
|
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:25, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Raiyaka's Peer Review
editSince you are only focusing on expanding the Application section of SCT, I'll tailor my Peer Review accordingly!
Lead - a new lead has not been updated since the user only focused on one specific section. This section of the review cannot be answered further.
Content:
The user is focusing on the applications of Social Cognitive Theory . They did a good job in expanding and providing more information about how it applies to the real world. The content added is up to date with the most recent content citing the year 2023. Alot of the information provided in the User's sandbox is great but needs more sources and citations to support their claims. The added content belongs in the article and flows smoothly. The article does not deal with Wikipedia's Equity Gaps.
(Try other books and other databases to strengthen your sources even further)
Tone and Balance
The content added is not very neutral due to the addition of phrases such as : " this is very important" and the like. Might want to change "our" language so it stays objective. The way the additions are worded might seem like it would convince people of the significance of SCT, adding a more professional tone to the language might make it less personal feeling. The application section of the article is more represented due to the User's contributions so far. the content added seems to be objective in explaining SCT but might appear biased due to the nature of application.
( This can be helped if you could put other citations/ sources to back up your claims of the capabilities, the claims are understandable but might want to avoid a reader asking " according to who / what" when reading your contribution, especially in the capabilities section)
Sources and References
Not all of the added content is backed up by a reliable source but should be an easy fix. the available sources in bthe user sandbox are relevant and diverse. The user did a good job in citing reliable sources but can do with more papers and research covering SCT. The links that are posted in the sandbox work in redirecting, and the citation links also work in displaying the full body of work.
(More sources from different mediums could help this article alot)
Organization
the added content is well written and informational. The sandbox draft has little grammatical errors that are pretty easy fixes, should avoid our language again. Sections well established but have no content to review so far. The ones that are able to be reviewed expands the section well to give the page some more context. Media effects studies section is developed nicely as well. Have sections that are repeated that could be removed to avoid redundancy.
( finishing up the sections of substance abuse and sexual content could provide strength to this article in a big way)
Images/Media
No images or media are added for the section that is focused in this User's sandbox but the section could do with some pictures. pictures could include: media violence representation and social media images from wikipedia's database.
OVERALL IMPRESSIONS
The section that was expanded added alot to the completion of the article , the breakdown of the capabilities could be a strong point if the right sources are added. This rings true for observational learning and modeling also, alot of research has been done on that. I see potential for a very complete article once the final version is out. Images of the research ( If its popular) could break down the pace of the article and avoid a giant word wall of information. Great job so far!