User:Lsheban/De-escalation/Jtoney1 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)
 * 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?

Lead evaluation
The lead has been updated to reflect new content such as de-escalation being a behavior that intends to resolve conflict by escaping escalations of said conflict; which concisely describes the article's topic. the lead describes major sections of the article without including information that is not discussed. overall the lead was concise when discussing de-escalation and how timing is an important factor or the intervention will bee inadequate and unsuccessful, ultimately damaging the therapeutic relationship.

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?

Content evaluation
The content is a little biased due to the fact that the drawbacks of de-escalating aggressive behavior wasn't listed. The article just list how it can be used to relieve tension but not how it can increase it. persuading the reader to believe that calm communication with a client can prevent future aggression and violence.

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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
All of the content is backed up with reliable sources except for the section "In Social Settings". The sources used reflect available literature for de-escalating aggressive behavior and they are current. in the midst of checking all of the links of the references I can confirm that they do work and transfers you to that particular article. for example one of the articles discusses the thematic synthesis of de-escalating techniques.

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?

Organization evaluation
The content was well written however there was breaks in the flow of the article. This can be seen when discussing the number of themes that articles converged on, the themes or some of them could have just been mentioned by saying for example... instead of prematurely ending the sentence. there was no spelling errors and it was well organized through miniature related topics.

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?

Images and media evaluation
The images present does not enhance the understanding of the topic. one of the images was Graham's hierarchy of disagreement which included name-calling and refuting the central point. they are however well captioned and adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations. the images are outlining the article but if they were more within the article it would've been more appealing.

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?

Overall evaluation
The new information added gives more volume in content to the overall article. strengths of the new content descries how stuff may need to utilize coercive measures to manage a violent client. the content added can be improved by adding unbiased research that shows the drawbacks of this therapy technique.