User:Morrisse95/Forensic psychology/Whitneyatwelle Peer Review

General info
Morrisse95
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
The lead of the article is concise and has a brief description of the topic. It did not add information about the major sections of the article, so that is something you could add to it. I like the portion that you added because it gives more information to fill the history aspect of the topic. I think it would be a good idea to add more information to the notable research section, as well as the education and advocacy sections since they are a bit disproportionately small compared to the other sections in the article. You could always combine the information in the education section with the "training and education" section. Another edit you could add in the training section would be the statistics showing how many forensic psychologists there are in the US, in the world overall, etc. Overall, the article's tone is neutral and has a lot of information on the topic. All of the sources are also cited properly. I think just adding some more contributions to other sections would strengthen it!

Response: I made changes to the article by adding more information regarding the case that brought forth the Daubert standard being used by the U.S. Supreme court. I have also added to the statistics of psychologist in the field.Thank you for your suggestions it has helped my article.