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

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Lridley097


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lridley097/Schema_(psychology)?action=edit
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Schema (psychology)

Evaluate the drafted changes
The added bibliography contained mostly older works. Do they add relevant information that isn't included in the other citations? Are those works the most up-to- date versions of that research that you were able to locate or are they being used in the historical citation? I could see from the links that there were many other citations so my guess is that the works are considered foundational but I wonder if there might not be more recent works that contain the same category of information. I could not quite understand the context that they were being used other than the two that were cited in the sandboxed article.

I think that the suggested change to the subheading is a good idea. The original language holds some slight bias.

I think that the changes to the modification section do help illustrate the concept well. I think the overall article could be improved by expanding on the concepts presented. I do not feel that the original lead section goes into enough detail so that is a place where the article can definitely be improved.

Eternalruler:

You make a very valid point about my bibliography, and I plan to review that and look for some verification from more current sources. To be honest, the concept of schema in psychology is something I touched on a few times in a few classes, but the development of the concept in history and its current understandings- is something I am continuing to look into.

I agree to the idea of the subheading, although my knowledge of the efficacy between "schema therapy" by Young and traditional CBT is non-extensive. This points out a lack of knowledge in the area which I should further look into.

Finally, the lead section does seem off to me. Either lacks organization or a good overview of the what the rest of the article holds. Thank you for pointing this out, and I hope to look into this further.~ Lridley097 (talk) 03:11, 8 March 2021 (UTC)