User:Mldavis318/Exposure therapy/Zeinasbai 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? Mldavis318
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Mldavis318/Exposure therapy

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 includes an introductory sentence that describes the article's topic (exposure therapy) clearly and concisely. After the introductory sentence, the lead touches upon major ideas that should be discussed, if not already discussed, in the article such as the three main subtypes of exposure therapy. I think that overall, the lead is concise and not overly detailed.

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?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation:
The content added is relevant to the topic of exposure therapy. It touches upon important ideas that should be further discussed in the article. The content added has been taken from articles published in the last 13 years. I think that more up-to-date information can be found since exposure therapy is an important topic in psychology. In general, no content is missing and the content added is suitable. However, the piece of information about the "fear extinction paradigm" could have been removed from the paragraph as it feels a little off. Finally, the content does not address historically underrepresented populations or topics.

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?

Tone and balance evaluation:
The content's tone sounds neutral, no bias information is presented. Also, no viewpoints are overrepresented or underrepresented. Finally, the content added does not persuade the reader to favor a certain side/position.

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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation:
Almost all new content is backed up by a reliable secondary source of information, except the piece of information about "the simple conditioning model". The sources used were published in 2007, 2008, and 2016. I think more current resources than 2007 and 2008 would have been stronger. The sources are written by a diverse spectrum of authors, one is German, one is American, and one is Israeli.

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 added is well-written, concise, and clear. It is easy to read and understand. The content does not include any grammatical or spelling errors and the information flows logically.

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:
No images or media was added.

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?

New Article Evaluation:
Not a new article.

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 content added improved the lead of the exposure therapy article. It gives a better introduction and overview of the article's main points to be discussed. The strengths of the added content is that it gives a better overview of the importance, types, and effectiveness of exposure therapy. The content can be improved by maybe removing the sentence about fear extinction paradigm. Also, more recent resources could be used to strengthen the paragraph.