User:Mm17t/Sensory integration therapy/Ahackney1702 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Mm17t


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mm17t/Sensory_integration_therapy?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Sensory integration therapy

Evaluate the drafted changes
I could not distinguish the difference between the original article and the sandbox draft. I do not know if something has happened where the article has been published over the original article. I can see that the references are different but they are not cited in the article for me to identify.

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The lead does not reflect new material.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, but the phrase "related situations" could possibly be defined further.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The lead does not provided brief descriptions.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, information provided is expanded on within the article or an external link is provided for the reader to explorer.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? The content available is relevant to the article.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? The references listed at the end of the article are from the last 10 years, the original article had sources from as far back as 1997.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I believe the history portion could use some support and additional information. Reviewing the Practice Section, additional information and reorganization of the section would strengthen the article.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? The topic does full in a gap and a underrepresented population.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? N/A

The tone of current article is balanced for what is available to review.

Sources and References- Not Applicable
Guiding questions:


 * Can review the sources but they are not cited in the new article and I am unable to identify where the new sources material is used.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content is easy to read and speaks to readers with ease.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? This is not a strong skill of mine but no large errors can be seen.

Images and Media-Not Applicable

 * I do think the addition of visuals would help and support the information being portrayed in the article. Tools and therapies would help explain what exactly sensory integration therapy is for someone.

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?
 * I am assuming information did not transfer over correctly or this is the rewritten article but I am unable to compare it to the original. Additional information of the sensory integration therapy process, practices, tools would be great additional information to add the the article. If I was to read this article without previous knowledge regarding sensory integration therapy I would not walk away knowing that the therapy process would like in implantation. The article reads easily but areas but sections such as " such as by occupational therapists as a foundation for occupational performance and participation, by psychologists on a cellular level as multi-sensory integration," might be clarified with an example seen in the therapy.