User:Hhmilius/Trauma focused cognitive behavioral therapy/BrownBoy1999 Peer Review

General info
(Hhmilius)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):

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.)

Content:
 * I would say the content far is very relevant to your content and solid contributions!
 * The content looks up-to-date. You have a couple articles and they seem to be relevant speaking from a time perspective!

Tone and Balance:


 * I would say your content is very neutral and comes strictly from an educational tone. Mostly everything you state comes from an article and does not seem to try to sway the reader to believe something that is not backed.

Sources and References:


 * All I would suggest, if possible, is if you could discuss where the sample of participants from your studies come from. If you do not, it does not take away from anything. I just believe it could contribute a lot to another perspective of this type of therapy.

Organization:


 * I think the organization so far is good. It is digestible and not too packed with information that may become difficult to pay attention to.

Wrap-Up:


 * Overall, I think the information is appropriate to your topic and appropriate for any audience to read. I have included some suggestions that I was not sure fit under any of these


 * 1) Perhaps a sentence saying what the authors in your first citations found in their study could be useful in why it was found to be effective
 * 2) A picture of the hand model brain if you could find it would be awesome.
 * 3) An earlier explanation of what complex trauma is at the beginning instead of towards the end.