User:Gabutler/Reverse psychology/A3341816 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Gabutler


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Editing User:Gabutler/Reverse psychology - Wikipedia


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Reverse psychology - Wikipedia

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.)

This article is tough; I was looking up some sources for Reverse Psychology and I could not find too much of anything. Deep searching is required! Reading through this article it needs a lot of work, not too many sources or many sings of research put into the leading section of the article which I think is important. This article has decent tone actually and I saw in your sandbox that you planned on changing a lot of things around I look forward to reading your article down the line to see what changes you decided to make. This article can use all the sources it can get. As I stated earlier, I had trouble finding sources. I looked in your sandbox and saw that you had a source and from following that source, I found many other sources that can help you for this article. Sources can take some of those "failed verification" out of your article. Also working on those "vague" sentences can look nice with some added resources. While there really is not a side to take on this, I feel like the article is neutral and is not pushing narratives upon people. I like the "do-not push this button" picture, it fits well into the article. I'm seeing your content improve this article a lot with the source that you found along with the changes of sentence structure. To improve this a little more I would just go out and for more articles to improve the validity of the things that are being sad. Good job so far!