User:AlyssiaN/Trauma focused cognitive behavioral therapy/Ramen.01 Peer Review

Peer review
This is where Safat (User:Ramen.01) will complete his peer review exercise. I will be using the following template to fill out my review.

General info

 * I am reviewing Alyssia's work. (User:AlyssiaN)
 * Link to draft I am reviewing: User:AlyssiaN/Trauma focused cognitive behavioral therapy

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The lead does not include any introductory sentence that concisely or clearly describes the article's main topic, as the lead section is an overview of what could be a part of the description of the topic to help develop a better understanding to the article and what it has to say. Starting with an overview of CBT, eventually introducing Trauma Focused Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (TF-CBT), its procedure, and ending with the outcome of the treatment sessions, the article almost seems like a presentation rather than a Wikipedia article with a lead that gives a brief description of main topic.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
The content added is relevant to topic to understand the topic well from the base level. Although, it does miss strong arguments and factors as well as having neutrality in the article. This article could potentially have more contents such as TF-CBT in children, adults, and evidences etc.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The content doesn't seem neutral as it leans towards TF-CBT throughout the article, specifically in the 'TF-CBT VS TAU' section. The experiment results appear to be biased in expressing the benefits of TF-CBT, not giving enough data or report. It over-represents a certain viewpoint to persuade the reader in favor of TF-CBT.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The sources seem reliable, however, one of the links didn't work upon clicking on it which redirected to an inaccessible page. The article highlights an error in the last reference as well to check date values.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
The article has room for improvement as slight organization can turn this article into a well-organized article that has a lead being concise and clear. The structure of the article could be better by having Headings, subheadings and organizing the sections in a proper way, as in having a lead that clearly states a brief introduction to the article followed a description that gives an overview of the article (in this case, overview of CBT could be a part of the description, while having an introduction to TF-CBT as the lead of the article).

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
The article don't have any images or media.

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
The article lacks strength and well-organization. As mentioned before, in Content Evaluation section, the article could be improved by having more contents, and facts from reliable sources rather than biased reports/ articles.