The definition for Fundamental Attribution Error that is in quotation marks may be bit too much for people unfamiliar with the terms/psychology that is included in the definition. I would maybe replace words like “attributor” and add examples after both “situational factors” and “dispositional factors”. (i.e., “situational factors such as luck,) 
Compared to the Fundamental Attribution Error definition that was provided in quotes, the one provided for attribution theory seems more simplistic and easy to follow, though “social perceiver” may have the same problem as “attributor” did like I mentioned above. Maybe for both definitions you could only use bits and pieces of the actual quotation and put the rest in your own words (i.e., change “social perceiver” -> “how an individual would be able to take in information ‘to explain events. 
Instead of a “in the real world” I would use to ‘one instance of this would be’ in order to have more of an “encyclopedic style”.
Using “their” instead of “his/her” before “personality” may be better as well, followed by “in which the individual is interacting” instead of “he/she is acting”. This would go well with the next section where “individual” and “their” is used in the place of “he/she” and “his/her”. 
Overall, I thought that this was a really interesting article and I think that you did a great job with the explanations and examples. I really like the organization of the article and the content seemed accurate. Aside from the few things that I’ve mentioned, I think that someone unfamiliar with the topic could get a decent grasp of the subject based on the information that you are presenting.