User talk:Reidster12/sandbox

I enjoyed reading your thoughts on your article. I like how you brought to light things that were missing/needed to be improved, such as the sourcing. You did not just agree with the present information, which is a very good thing.

Peer Review

I have read the article and what you plan to contribute. My ideas for editing this paper would be at the end of the 4th paragraph in the beginning of the article, I would look for an updated average cost. The sentence states that an estimated cost is $45 billion per year but that was in 1991. I am curious if there is an updated reference so to make it more current. Great work! --Jarogers0998 (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I read what you wanted to contribute to the article. I like your ideas and thoughts on what will improve the article. It will be best to add your ideas to the work. Tmatkins19 (talk) 05:59, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Response to JaRogers: Not entirely sure what part of the article this was in reference to or if it was in reference to the article I had chosen before this, either way I appreciate the feedback on your end.

Response to Tmatkins Peer Review: Thank you for the feedback and I hope that my edits proved to help the average reader become more familiar with the ideas of Jung and the latter period of his publications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reidster12 (talk • contribs) 04:28, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Esteban's peer review

You offer some very insightful critique relating to the nature of this article. You appear to have a number of points concerning, the renowned psychologist, Carl Jung. I was curious to know if you were planning on adding to any more sections of the article, or if you plan to focus on Jung's theory and ideology?

Moreover, you discuss the fact that the first half of the article was "devoid of source material." Do you think you might add any additional credible sources to that half of the article? Additionally, you discuss the abstract nature of the article, and its lack of objective content. Thus, it appears you have a good idea of how you might go about adding more distinct, and refined content to this article. You also discuss the section concerning Jung's childhood and relationships. I am curious to know how much of that information might be relevant to Jung's perspectives, and later views in life. It is good you have already investigated the content, and references listed within the article, as you mentioned that nothing appeared to be out of date. However, I agree that it appears that a number of things could be improved within the article.

You make some excellent points and have a knowledgeable perspective into the nature of this article. I think it would be very good to see information concerning Jung's perspectives on the human psyche, his experiments, and how his past relationships influenced his later views in life. You have excellent organization, and a clear outline on how you can improve this article! Nice edits!Earnold97 (talk) 04:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Response to Esteban's Peer Review: In response to the question posed about the main content of my additions, the main plan I have is to extend the coverage of some of Jung's ideological concepts as well as his later publications. I hope to add more credible sources, including his own work to the list that is included in the article presently. I appreciate the feedback on my potential edits and hope the eventual products are in line with what you communicated here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reidster12 (talk • contribs) 04:26, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Jordan's Peer Review

I read through the additions that you would like to add to your article, and I can say that with confidence your findings will make a significant contribution to the article. Not only does it provide filling for gaps in content, but it also creates points for future editors to expand upon. I noticed that the relationship with Freud section was almost barren besides a link to another article. Do you think that it can be expanded upon further, or is it sufficient? Overall, I think you have great improvements waiting to go in. --Jjami70 (talk) 00:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Response to Jordan's Peer Review: I appreciate the positive feedback on the changes I proposed to make in the article. I was hoping that the contributions wouldn't be too specific for a person unacquainted with Jung's work to make sense of but I'm glad to hear this was not the case. You're right about the section about Jung's relationship with Freud being comparably barren to the others, I wish I knew more than what was already stated but honestly the extent of my knowledge in this area extends to the early inter workings between the two and not much beyond that. I'm sure someone more educated in this part of both of the men's lives could provide more insight into the nature of their relationship over the years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reidster12 (talk • contribs) 04:23, 27 April 2019 (UTC)