User:Fwilliamson3/Fight-or-flight response/Mldavis318 Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? Fwilliamson3
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Fwilliamson3/Fight-or-flight response

Lead
Guiding questions:


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

Lead evaluation
The lead was not one of the sections edited. No feedback available.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the content added expands upon the information already present.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Not that I could see, it all appears to be up to date!
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No, however it does touch upon individual differences that could affect one's emotional regulation and reactivity!

Content evaluation
The content that was added is relevant and impactful! It expanded on previously mentioned information and gave more insight to emotional regulation and emotional reactivity! The author did a great job of offering various viewpoints and perspectives throughout the edit, and providing a thorough explanation!

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes! The author did a great job of balancing various viewpoints for each of the added sections!
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No!
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No!
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No!

Tone and balance evaluation
Overall the added content is well balanced and has a neutral tone! It was very representative, offering various viewpoints!

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes! The author did a great job of citing information!
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes!
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes! All of the sources are from the past decade!
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes! The sources had diverse authors!
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * I was not able to click on any of the links in the citations. I have no feedback on this.

Sources and references evaluation
The sources used were relevant, reliable, current and representative of the topic. Not being able to access any of the citations was a bit of an issue, try looking into finding a way in which readers can access the articles via a link in your citation.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The content was very well-written! It was concise and easy to read! It was even enjoyable to read! Great job!
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Nope! Grammar and spelling was great!
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes! The content was great at expanding the topics in an organized, and easy to read manner!

Organization evaluation
Overall, the added sections were well organized, grammatically correct and easy to read!

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


 * 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
There is no feedback, since there were no images added.

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?

New Article Evaluation
There is no feedback, not applicable.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes! The information added helped me to better understand the topic and expanded the knowledge that was already available!
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The content added was informative and important information that had previously been left out! It is well-organized, grammatically correct, concise and easy to read!
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * The content could be improved by adding information pertaining to the definition of emotional regulation and emotional reactivity. Most people do not know what these terms mean from the psychological standpoint. Additionally, it could be helpful to link some of the words in the text to their corresponding wikipedia articles so that those that don't know much about the topic can use the link to learn more.