User:Kewestbrook1/Relational Dialectics Theory/Mcthompson5 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? (provide username)
 * Kewestbrook1
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Kewestbrook1/sandbox

Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * My peer's voice and style can be seen throughout the Lead section. This portion of the article introduces the complicated theory well!
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the article describes what the topic and theory is very well.
 * 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?
 * (regarding the two questions above) The Lead is an excellent introduction and summary of the theory. However, it could do a better job of detailing and previewing the remainder of the topics discussed in the article. The Lead stays on target though and does not present information that is not relevant or not present in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The Lead is concise. If anything, it could utilize more simplistic language at first in order for the reader to feel at ease and begin to grasp the complicated theory.

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?
 * (regarding the three questions above) The article is thorough and sticks to Relational Dialectics Theory. It covers many important aspects and characteristics of the topic while staying relevant. The content added is up-to-date as well. I appreciated the section that presented and explained RDT 2.0 and felt like the section was necessary to include.

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?
 * (regarding the four questions above) The content added seems valid and credible, not showing any signs of biases in any way. If anything, particular portions of the article were completely deleted due to the author feeling as though they are not relevant to the theory or topic. Perhaps the article could include small portions or specific sentences from these deleted sections in order to still incorporate those viewpoints and not have their own thoughts and opinions overrepresented.

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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * (regarding the four questions above) Content is heavily backed up with credible sources and information. Each source is current, reflects the available literature of Relational Dialectics Theory, and does work. Sources used do an excellent job of covering the many aspects of this intricate theory.

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?
 * (regarding the three questions above) The content that is added is well organized and each added paragraph fits in with the original article well. The syntax and language is simplistic, articulate, detailed, and nicely written. I did not see any grammatical errors with spelling and/or quotations. One minor change that I would make is breaking up certain paragraphs that seem to be slightly long and full of information. This would help the reader stay organized, motivated, and enticed throughout the article.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * The article does not include any images. However, it does include a chart that is relevant to the information.
 * 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

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?
 * I definitely think the article is more complete and the theory is better explained and/or emphasized.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The article overall is extremely thorough and does an excellent job walking the reader through every aspect of the theory.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * The biggest critique I would have for the article is improving the layout and organization of the article in order to be more easily read. For example, indent more paragraphs or add graphics/charts that would relate well with what is being discussed.