User:Jebradl1/Cognitive behavioral training/Jhnola 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? Jebradl1
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Cognitive behavioral training

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? It doesn't necessarily mention the sections but it eludes to some of them. The Lead could do a better job of establishing the sections, for example, I was not expecting Willpower to be a main section since it is not mentioned in the Lead. I think the Difference from CBT section would flow better if something like, "Distinct from CBT,..." or "Often confused with CBT,..." were added to the lead. Small additions could be added to make the reader better expect the discussions in the sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It seems a bit busy and overly detailed. In my opinion, phrases like "highly structured workshop-style approach" would be better placed in the Description section or if a better Methods section was developed.

Lead evaluation
The lead could be simplified to include details in their respective sections and could also be developed to better introduce the sections and information of the article.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Most of it. In History of Development the information on how Lou Ryan met Albert Ellis seems like fluff added for a word count, as well as his quote that should be paraphrased.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? References range from 1984 to 2020 (each years having only 1 source), with many of the sources published in 2013. I'm sure the field of CBTraining is always evolving and could include more current information.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Yes, see above about Ellis and Ryan. The content seems redundant, often being mentioned in multiple sections. There is also a study that is mentioned under In adolescents with behavior disorders, but no further information is given on the result or goal of the study.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No.

Content evaluation
The is missing information, contains useless information, could use a bit of updating, and the redundant information should be reduced and presented in its appropriate section.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? For the most part, yes, but the wording in some sentences and lack of citations come across as some information being an opinion. For example, "...the change in behavior is intrinsically motivated and willpower never really plays a part in it." There is no citation supporting willpower has no influence at all. A better way to say it would be "willpower is not shown to be as effective" and cite a research source.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Yes. One of the two "spectrums" CBTraining is most often used, criminal behavior, could use more information. I would expect and example or mention of a specific study done in this area.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Tone and balance evaluation
The lack of citations and some of the wording makes the information seem to be opinion as opposed to factual researched information.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? I don't believe I have access to the new additions but there are not nearly enough citations for this article.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, it includes several peer reviewed sources.
 * Are the sources current? They range from 1984 to 2020 with most of them from around 2013. With such an evolving field, it should include more information from more recent sources.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Not all links work. In the References section, 4, 6, 9, a portion of 10, 13, and 18 do not work.

Sources and references evaluation
Broken links need to be fixed and few more recent sources need to be added. Overall the sources are thorough.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? It is quite redundant, contains many long-winded sentences, as well as some "fluff". It makes it rather painful to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Yes, for example, "CBTraining aims for fast and effect new skills that the individual can being to use in their own life" should be "...fast and effective...".
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Sort of. There is information under sections that should be put in others. The sections would be more effective with different titles.

Organization evaluation
Basic editing and reorganizing information under appropriate sections needs to be done.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? There are no images or media.
 * Are images well-captioned? N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

Images and media evaluation
There are no images or media to evaluate.

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? Yes, there are several reliable secondary sources. With 26 sources, the list is exhaustive not counting those with broken links. The sources offer a decent spread of available information.
 * 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? Comparing to Cognitive behavioral therapy, this article contains similar sections. The amount of information and number of sections in the CBT article is significantly more than this article, and better organized. For example, the other article offers separate sub-sections of its history - philosophical roots, behavioral roots, etc.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes.

New Article Evaluation
I don't believe this draft is a new article draft, but the article could use pattern improvement when compared to other similar articles. The references and links are sufficient.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? My understanding is this is the original article and not one that has been added to, so I cannot answer this question.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The existing content does a decent job of explaining what CBTraining is, although it could be improved.
 * How can the content added be improved? In terms of the existing content, it should be edited to remove redundant information and wordiness. Citations should be added and language sounding as opinion should be omitted. Examples of specific studies should be included. The section titles should be reconsidered. Links should be fixed as well as grammatical errors.

Overall evaluation
This article can be easily improved by simply going through and editing each sentence and adding citations. Removing redundant information and better organizing information under appropriate sections will improve this article ten fold.