User:JessicaLiska/Rage room/Alexandra.rylander Peer Review

General info
JessicaLiska
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
You've made some helpful edits and are off to a great start! I think the lead section of the original article is pretty solid at the moment, but perhaps you could add a brief overview of the article's major sections (ex. establish how rage rooms require necessary safety precautions, are therapeutically effective, have possible issues, etc.). I think your addition of the section that acknowledges the issues connected to rage rooms is valuable! One thing I would look out for in your writing is bias, though. For example, in your sentence "in order to fulfill..... talking to a friend or professional," it sounds like you are advising the reader. While this is great advice for rage room users, I think you should maintain a more neutral tone for this platform. I would say, keep the content you wrote here, but rephrase it in a way that assumes an informative tone rather than instructional. Additionally, it looks like you've found some great sources! My only note here is check back with the references training module to ensure that you format the references section correctly. I think the contributions you've made so far have improved the quality of the article! To strengthen it even more, my main advice would be flesh out the issues section a bit more, perhaps add one or two more sections, and keep the tone of your writing in mind. Great job and good luck with the remainder of your project :)