User:Leanna321/Rumination (psychology)/Psychologylearner1 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Leanna321


 * Link to draft you're reviewing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Leanna321/Rumination_%28psychology%29?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Rumination (psychology)

Eva luate the drafted changes
Lead

-       First off, let me just say your article edits and contributions are the most well thought out and beneficial ones I’ve read (no offense to anyone else that reads this!). At present however, the lead section of this article really only gives two differing definitions of rumination and nothing more. I would like to see more concise explanations of the differing definitions, as well as, added blurbs about the other topics related to rumination that are mentioned in the article past section 1. Now, that is a big ask as the article is content dense, but I believe in you! I would suggest editing the lead as to not be so descriptive, thus allowing for general explanation of the article’s content for easy reading. Simple sentences would be beneficial to use as they would cut straight to the point of the sections avoiding information that is going to be mentioned later, in depth, in the article (I may have repeated myself, but you get the point ha!)

Content

-       I found this article incredibly interesting and wanted to keep reading. I think that is a good indicator that an article’s content is well thought out and informative. The article talks about the theory that rumination is based on, the pathology of rumination, types and how to measure rumination, as well as other interesting additives that create a well-rounded article. To take it all a step beyond, I would suggest sprinkling in cultural implications that are relevant to each section, as well as maybe a special section on how rumination is distributed among the population past biological sex categories and how it affects different categories of people within varying social constructs (think something along the lines of do different cultures respond to rumination differently and what social stigmas might be associated with rumination and its co-morbidities within that culture or population). I think all the content in the article thus far is relevant and belongs. A vast majority of the sources used for this article are over a decade old so it may not be the most up-to-date information available. I would be interested to see if the information we have on rumination has changed with the advent and astronomical take off of social media as well.

Tone and Balance

-       The edits you have made are very objective and clinical, whereas the rest of the article uses much more lax vocabulary to help with the average reader’s comprehension. The information you present is adds value, but I would suggest “dumbing it down” a little. Most people don’t understand research terms like positive association or negative association as used in the context of this article. It is a very well-balanced article, though there is some language (outside of your edits) that is qualifying instead of neutral (words like important and unhealthy, which is very subjective). I don’t think the material attempts to persuade and is equal parts who, what, when, where, and how if that makes sense (though I would be interested in some mention of the neuropsychology of rumination).

Sources and References

-       Dr. Rahn already did a thorough job of evaluating your sources to determine if primary or secondary sources were being used. Some of the sources you’ve added seem to be more recent than most of the other sources used for this article, which I appreciate. You are extremely detailed (this is a really good thing) in your recounting of the information in these sources, I would just be careful that you are adding enough differences in the information from the sources that the edits are flagged for plagiarism or something because of similarities. From the quick Google searches of some of the authors of the added articles, there isn’t much diversity in the literatures authors, but you can’t help what research is available. The links do work for me. Yay!

Organization

-       As previously stated, I think the article is well balanced and easy to read. There were a few grammatical errors I noticed in the sections you copy and pasted into your Sandbox (not at any fault of yours), so I would comb over the entire article to make changes as need for clarification and correct usage. As for the organization of the sections within the article, I would switch a couple sections for continuity. I would arrange them as follows: Theories (aka definitions of theory), pathology (types and content of thought and healthy self-disclosure as subsections), relationship to other related constructs, measurement, and finally sex differences and any cultural or socially impacted sections. As briefly stated above, I would suggest making some of the sections subsections of the more broad sections (Types and content of thought and healthy self-disclosure might flow better as subsections of pathology – thinking of the causes and effects of rumination, followed by measurement). Overall the article does need a little help in continuum.

Images and Media

-       There is one image in the article and it seems to be accurate credited and not in violation of Wikipedia’s copyright regulations. I think the image adds a good visual aid for the tone of rumination. Some pictures of examples of the measurements might enrich the reader’s understanding of what is being measured. The only image is “aesthetically pleasing” and fits well.

Overall Impression

-       I am highly impressed with your attention to detail and to facts. The article has good bones, but I would challenge you to add content that pushes beyond study findings and results. This is mildly difficult as you can’t add opinions or biases, but I think there is literature that would enhance the cultural and social impact of rumination to be found (I Googled “rumination” and “African American” and found an interesting source that explored how race related stress and the unique rumination from that affect Black women. The research is out there for sure). I appreciate the edits you’ve added, though I would suggest some clarifying edits to make the content more universally understandable. I can’t wait to see what edits you make next!