User:GJaet/Aversion therapy/Rslindse Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

GJaet


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:GJaet/Aversion therapy


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Aversion therapy

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.)

The article may need a lead section so that readers can have an idea of what it entails. Making sure that the lead section and other sections are brief yet informative allows ease and practicality when reading.

The added content has the potential to be a valuable addition to the article, considering that it offers new or more precise flow of information. However, I do think that the information under references may be in the wrong section. The information under references can go into the article's body, or maybe the lead section, although it is suggested that it remains brief.

There is no overly persuasive language in the draft, rather, it seems that the new article will take a very neutral stance.

Adding around 2 sources can be helpful.

The article draft seems to be heading in a positive direction. The original article seems to have very short descriptions, so providing more content like what the author has done/is doing is very good.