User:MPHILLI/Folk psychology/Nicolemicha Peer Review

General info
MPHILLI
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:MPHILLI/Folk psychology:
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Folk psychology:

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead: The lead has been updated to reflect new content by my peer and it includes an introductory sentence where the reader will know what topic the article will talk about. The Lead does mention a little bit about the further sections in the article, however, I am not sure that is covers all of them. The lead features information that is presented in the article, however, some content is not mentioned in the lead. Overall, the lead does sound concise, clear, and could be understood by the reader.

Content: The content added is relevant to the topic and is up to date. Some content I believe would be missing would be about the methods in the lead. By adding to the lead or taking away information from the article body would match up the balance of the article. The article does talk about what I assume to be historically underrepresented topics as pain has been dealt with in a certain perspective. However, I do not know if the information to be added were to continue shedding light on underrepresentation as I do not see it in the sandbox.

Tone and Balance: The content that is added does seem to be neutral and it suggests a way of thinking where the reader could see the differences between the lens of folk psychology. The information does not persuade the reader to think a certain way, instead it gives information on the different outlooks that are used in folk psychology.

Sources and References: The source does not seem to have a link that I could click on, therefore, I could not visit the page to see if it is right for this article. The article is current as the year lists 2019. To see if the article contained diverse authors, or was thorough, I believe a link where I could access the original information would be beneficial.

Organization: The article does seem organized and the content is written in a concise, clear, and easy to read manner. I do not spot grammatical errors and the information has contributed to sections of the article and contributed a reflection of the major points.

Images and Media: I do not see any added images or media.