User:Lisandralfonso/sandbox

Peer Review, High and low context cultures.

• The section describing the changes in "Diversity" I believe is lacking information, the source: http://www2.pacific.edu/sis/culture/pub/Context_Cultures_High_and_Lo.htm is reliable, but I don't understand specifically what information from this source is going to be added to the actual article.
• I agree that the section related to humor is not necessary, it could either be added to any of the other sections or just be deleted from the article.
• I totally agree with what you say about the adaptation section, it is generalizing and also persuading, it should be removed from the article as well.
• I understand and agree with this sentence "I would add something like: "Following the studies of Orlando Kelm, business between people from different countries can be difficult, like Americans are very uncomfortable with silence and they view it as a negative indicative, and Japanese people see silence as something natural and needed sometimes, when thinking about a proposition for example." but I do not see a source or something to rely on, is there any?
• The four sources added are all reliable and I consider they are good sources but exactly what information is going to be added to the article from these sources and in which part of the article?
• In general the structure of the review is clear and everything is understandable and organized. I would add more changes based on the other sections on the article if you find there is something else that needs to be added.

Notes, evaluating "Halo Effect", adding changes.

• The first sentence should use plain language to establish the basic idea, which I think is important and it is not being clearly established, so change that to a more easy to understand definition excluding "cognitive bias" which is another definition most people would have to look up to understand. For example: "The halo effect is the tendency in which the observer's good impression of a person influences positively how the observer feels about this particular person; in other words, if you like someone you are most likely to see their actions as positive; it is highly related to attractiveness and it works with companies, brands or products."
• I would add to the article (maybe in the first paragraph somewhere) that the "halo effect" is not only a cognitive bias but also a Attribution bias and also link the definition of this to the article. Change the second sentence for example to: "It is a Cognitive bias and also an Attribution bias; it was named by psychologist Edward Thorndike in reference to a person being perceived as having a halo."
• I added a source to that second sentence, that actually proves that the halo effect was named after Edward Thorndike, because there was no prove of it.
• The second paragraph has too much unnecessary and hard to understand information, I would change that to something easier, for example: "Human beings naturally make these perceptual adjustments—up with a halo, down with horns—without even realizing it"
• "Conventionality" link does not work so remove that.