User:NPierre11/Social narrative/Ahackney1702 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?
 * Npierre11
 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:NPierre11/Social narrative
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Social narrative
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Social narrative

Evaluate the drafted changes
Peer review

Only modifications were made to certain portions of the original article.

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Opening sentence is missing a couple words. I assuming this is just from copying over from the original article but does need to be addressed.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Once corrected, yes. The lead sentence provides direct understanding of what one will be reading in the article.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? In a way, yes.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, the lead provides several components that is noted in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? "Social narratives often use personalized stories to teach various skills such as skill, identify a situation, or tell a narrative; Social Narratives cover a variety of topics such as getting along with others, following rules or routines, money, amongst many others. Social Narratives is often referred to as a story or a visual and/or written explanation that tells the individual not only what to do in a situation, but also help identify the situation and understand the perspective of others." I believe this portion of the lead could be consolidated to provide a better flow.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? I was only able to identify content changes in the lead paragraph. The information provided in the Sandbox Article regarding types of the social narratives.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? The oldest sourced provided was from 2005, the sources seem recent and relevant.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No content is missing regarding what has been provided. Expansion on the types of social narratives from the three provided in the original article would expand the article deeper.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? The topic is very relevant for a large population. I believe the portion of the article provided in the Sandbox will support individuals understanding the varies types of social narratives.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? What I can identify as being additional information, yes is it neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Looking at the original article, no research is provided regarding the benefits, success, failures, etc. regarding this practice.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I believe, based off the original article implementation strategies and research behind the EBP is missing supporting the effectiveness or providing limitations that can be seen with the EBP.

Sources and References- Not Applicable
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? All the sources provided are see in the original reference section with the same citations found in the original article.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? I think an opportunity is there to expand. One article (Leaf, J.B., Ferguson, J.L., Cihon, J.H. et al. A Critical Review of Social Narratives. J Dev Phys Disabil 32, 241–256 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-019-09692-2) looks at the lack possible evidence supporting the use of this EBP. Here is another article looking at effectiveness (  Zimmerman, Kathleen N, and Jennifer R Ledford. “Beyond ASD: Evidence for the Effectiveness of Social Narratives.” Journal of early intervention 39.3 (2017): 199–217. Web.)
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, they are accessible in both the article and sandbox.

Organization- Not Applicable

 * Only a portion of the article was transfer into the sandbox. It is unclear what the final organization of the article will look like.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Only one image is provided. Depending on the diversity of the types of social narratives there are, providing images maybe supportive to the information provided.
 * Are images well-captioned? The image provided is from the original article, I would have included in the caption what type of social narrative that was be depicted.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Limited information was added to the Sandbox article I was given access too. On reviewing the original article, I am wondering if the edits were posted already. The article states it was last updated February 27th, 2022 and once of the references noted on the original article was retrieved February 24, 2022, the same as noted in the sandbox references.
 * How can the content added be improved? The history behind social narratives can be provided, studies regarding its effectiveness or limitations, expansion on the types of narratives, and/or implantation strategies of the narratives may support the article and those hoping to gain a better understanding.