User:Justiceross 20/Play therapy/Larsa22 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Justice Ross 20


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Justiceross%2020/Play_therapy?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Play therapy

LEAD
- The lead has not been updated (as of 11/2/2022) to reflect the new content added.

- In the existing article:

~ The lead includes a really good introductory sentence.

~ The lead's description is a bit longer than most other articles I have viewed and does not give much description or reference to the major sections in the article. This may be a good place to start with re-writing the lead to include the major existing topics and the new topics that will be covered.

~ Under the lead, there is a link for forensic that I believe may need to be corrected as it goes to the reference for an Anatomically Correct Doll. Anatomically correct doll

CONTENT
The section copied to the sandbox is "Play Therapy Training". What has been added is regarding what training and certifications are needed. This is a good addition as it does not seem to be touched within the existing content. There is a citation showing at the end of the sentence being added. There is also a second citation listed but it seems to be attached to the reference list. I am not sure where this reference actually belongs.

In the existing article, it covers a lot of history of play therapy and the different methods and tools used. I found it very interested and the images that were used were a good supplement. The location of the subsection "Play Therapist Training" seems to be in an odd place under the Section of 4.1 Nondirective Play Therapy and it is not listed in the contents guide.

TONE AND BALANCE
~ The sentences in the sandbox (as of 11/02/2022) are neutral.

~ Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No. I didn't notice any bias tone in the new content and the existing content.

~ Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? There is a lot more information regarding the Nondirective play therapy than there is directive play therapy. I think this is something that may need to be filled out.

~ Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Though there is some underrepresented sections, I do not see where an of the existing content tries to do any persuading.

Sources and References


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? I am not sure. One of the two references is not completely linked to vet the source.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? Unable to verify.
 * Are the sources thorough? Within the existing article, yes.
 * Are the sources current? Most within the existing article seem to be current. They are very many references within the existing article.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes, I believe that they are.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? I was not able to find very many sources within searches of the library system.

Organization


 * Is the content added well-written? What is there is well written.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No.
 * Is the content added well-organized? N/A.

Images and Media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes. I found the images of the different toys (especially historic ones) to be very interesting.
 * Are images well-captioned? Some are very generic short caption.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia copyright regulations? Honestly, I am not sure. Like the lego picture, it doesn't say in the caption what the source is.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes.

Overall Impressions


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article? I think that once it has been completed, it is a good contribution to the overall article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? N/A
 * How can the content added be improved? I am interested to see what additional information is added. I think the topic of the certification/training will fill in a gap for the article. Maybe cover some of the places where someone can achieve these credentials.