User:Kbaeza-hernandez/Use of technology in treatment of mental disorders/Nk2668 Peer Review

Hi! I think it is a great idea to draft a section on the use of video games in the treatment of mental disorders, especially with children and adolescents. I am unfamiliar with the literature on this but is worth mentioning that this may be a gap in research that it may be worth exploring. I would also add a section on the ethical considerations of video games in this context and how practitioners may have taken precautions and safety measures to ensure ethical and clinical standards are met.

In terms of adding a section on the use of chatbots for the treatment of mental disorders, I noticed that there is a section in the wikipedia article (Technology and cognitive behavioral therapy) which mentions the following paragraph on chatbots:

''While studies have investigated the clinical efficacy of remote-, internet- and chatbot-based therapy, there are other factors, such as enjoyment and smoothness, that are important for evaluating therapy sessions. Research published in 2019 reported a comparative study of therapy sessions following the interaction of 10 participants with human therapists versus a chatbot (simulated using a Wizard of Oz protocol), finding evidence to suggest that when compared against a human therapist control, participants find chatbot-provided therapy less useful, less enjoyable, and their conversations less smooth (a key dimension of a positively-regarded therapy session).''

I would take advantage of this and suggest splitting this section (Technology and cognitive behavioral therapy) into 2 parts: technology-assisted CBT, which is already written up, and chatbot-provided therapy, which you can create with your additions and include the paragraph above. I think this would add some good detail about the use of technology in the treatment of mental disorders and would make for a more comprehensive account.

I look forward to seeing your additions to this article :)

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? (provide username)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * 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?

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

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?
 * 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?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?