User:Lridley097/Schema (psychology)/Chalktalk1 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Lridley097


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Lridley097/Schema (psychology)


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Schema (psychology)

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

I think your first proposal "maladaptive schemas can be a contributing factor...." is worded very well and easy to understand. The example you give of maladaptive schema is a beneficial contribution helping clarify exactly what maladaptive schema is. The way you used the adjective "absolute" really solidify an understanding of the way a schema is not just a proposed thought process but an absolute belief system. I think that this contribution would flow the best under the Schema Therapy section because there is a generalized definition of maladaptive schema in the introduction of that section but there isn't an example. I think that your entry would be a great bridge between the intro that mentions maladaptive schema and the paragraph that jumps into CBT, because you expound on the definition of maladaptive schema while simultaneously reiterating the relevance of CBT. I also think that spelling out CBT positively contributes to that section as a more formal, concise redirection of where the topic is leading. I think that it would flow best as the beginning of the second paragraph versus having its own paragraph. Your contribution there would provide a nice transition into the remaining information provided about therapy.

''Chalktalk1: I have not decided yet for sure whether to change, or if changing the heading, makes a distinctive and important difference. However, your reasoning and evaluation was very helpful as to where my first addition would fit best. You make an excellent point about it leading into the next section and providing an example that was missing- something I hadn't really considered. After reading the article so many times, an outside view is helpful.''

''For the second addition, your wording is more direct and clear, so thank you for this recommendation. Your edits make the flow of the sentences better.''

''In regard to the third proposal edit, this is something I will consider further. I think it flows well enough either way, and my initial reasoning for its current wording was to provide pause for the reader and not provide too much at one time. However, your idea is equally valid. It may also be something I look into as I incorporate further information into my draft.'' Lridley097 (talk) 03:13, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Regarding your second proposal "In the addition of forming new schemata from existing ones..." I think that your wording is very easy to understand and it would positively contribute to the proposed section because you are making the point that the initial forming of a new schema may be inaccurate whereas the current section is focused on how already existing schemas can effect the way new schemas are formed. Instead of adding it to the end of that section, i propose you remove "In addition to the difficulty of forming new schemata from existing ones" and begin the section with "the creation of initial schemata is not always accurate..." and have that as the first sentence. Then add "Additionally," to the existing sentence and remove "However" in the "however, schemata can influence and hamper the uptake of new information...." because the existing information builds upon your contribution.

Regarding your third proposal In view of this, a person's new schemata..." is worded well and is clearly adding relevant information to that section. The only thing I would recommend considering is, instead of ending the first sentence with "subtype" and beginning a new sentence with "This allows...", I would combine the sentence : "subtype, which allows the information...." katChalktalk1 (talk) 23:59, 28 February 2021 (UTC)