User:Jacob k 2022/Counseling psychology/Seganey Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Jacob K 2022


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jacob%20k%202022/Counseling_psychology?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Counseling psychology

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead

-      The lead has not been edited by this writer.

Content

-       Jacob has made great additions to an already well-done article. All of his additions are relevant and up to date with current information that I was able to find. He does a good job on focusing his information to smaller sections of the article, so that there is more room for details that may have been skipped over by other writers.

-      Everything is up to date and relevant to the article. Jacob did a good job sticking to the topic.

Tone and Balance

-       The content is neutral and well written. Jacob has done an excellent job at keeping the information that he added necessary to the future of this article.

-       The content that has been added by Jacob is neutral and does not show any biases. The article is only informing readers without adding his own personal opinions.

Sources and References

-       All of the references listed are reliable and the links take you to the proper pages/websites. For what he has written, he is using the best sources. The only addition I would make is to use a few of the sources listen in the article already, because they offer different information.

Organization

-       Jacob is following the organization of the existing article, which will be the easiest way for him to transfer his information over when it is time to do so.

-     The content is well written and organized. It is easy to follow and has very few grammatical errors. I recommend using Grammarly to make sure all spelling and grammatical errors are fixed.

Images and Media

-       There are no added images or media on this edit.

Overall impressions

-       I think that these edits are very well thought out and written. He does a good job of adding necessary information to the existing article without sounding repetitive. He has updated the information to be the most current that is available. Going back and forth reading his edits alongside the existing article, I can easily see all of them fitting into the new version of the article. My only take away would be to continue to expand a bit more on the COVID section. Since that is the most current, I think a lot of good work can be added. Here is a link I found that may help you find some additional information on the post-covid effects.

-       https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7362162/