User:Djward21/Psychological resilience/CDLR50 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Deezytings


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Djward21/Psychological_resilience?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Psychological resilience

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Since I am evaluating this early due to my travel abroad, my evaluation will be based on the overall article, rather than your work on it.

My first thought was that this is an extensive article to edit so more power to you! :) Please forgive me if my review is a little "choppy," but I am pressed for time.

It's interesting that there is an opening paragraph and then a definition. I feel this is helpful as the first paragraph gives some background and the second goes into more detail as to the definition of resilience. I feel that the Lead lacks a brief description of the sections, as the definition moves directly into how resilience is understood and measured. For example, "Protective Factors," which appears to be a large part of the initial research on resilience, and is brought up throughout the article, could be explained briefly in the Lead. A summary of what will be covered at the start of the article would also be helpful, especially considering that this is a long article. It's hard to say if there is info in the Lead and is not covered in the article as it's not clear where the "Lead" ends and the "Body" content begins.

I appreciate that a "Criticism" section was added at the end of Lead section as I would agree that resilience is difficult to measure especially considering that some my initially be resilient (or appear to be), only to later succumb to an even more intense reaction or post-traumatic stress. It is not easily defined. There are several "Criticism" sections throughout the article which I feel are very helpful in presenting the other side.

In the section "Related Factors," the subheading, "Other Factors," could be better divided or condensed as there is a lot of into in there, but the paragraphs are long and there's a lot to read through.

Under "Biological Models," there could be a subsection on genetic predisposition either towards resilience or not. I feel this is an area that could be more thoroughly researched.

I enjoyed reading "Building Resistance" as it takes the article beyond explaining and defining resilience, into how one can be resilient. The end of the section could be divided into an additional "Criticism" section when it begins to point out that it is at odds with resilience as a process. I especially enjoyed the subtopic, "Building Resilience Through Language," as this is an important implication to a current phenomenon. I do however think this section is a bit long and could be better condensed.

The "Specific Situations," was also very informative as I think it is helpful to define what challenges resilience. However, my criticism of this section, as with several others in this article, is the length of the section or paragraphs without subheadings, summaries, etc. This may just be a personal thing as I am an easily distracted reader. For example, the section of "Divorce" could have a link to the article on Divorce for basic info and only highlight what is important to the topic of resilience.

I really enjoyed that the article concluded with "The concept of resilience in language," as this brought in other cultures and their specific approaches to resilience. It's nice to see a topic covered from other perspectives.

I also appreciated once again the "Criticism," section at the very end and I think this is a section that could be further explored. What are other arguments against the promotion or perhaps popularity of "resilience." Does it label those who are struggling after a traumatic event as "un-resilient?"

It appears the sources used are thorough as there are several current, secondary sources.