User:PeterBuon/Attachment theory/Downerchannel Peer Review

General info
PeterBuon
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:PeterBuon/Attachment theory
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Attachment theory:

Evaluate the drafted changes
'''Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?'''

Everything is relevant to the article topic and it was a clear, concise summary of the added section. I especially found it really interesting that one tactic is to learn the probationer’s attachment history so they can better understand them.

'''Are the sources biased? Are they trusted to speak on the topic?'''

The facts stated are supported by the source and the source (Dr. Maria Ansbro and the HM Inspectorate of Probation) is a trusted authority on the subject, along with being backed by research. It is possible the source is biased due to it being funded by the Ministry of Justice. It was also published by a doctor who was a probation officer for 13 years, but in my opinion that would make for a more nuanced and informed look at the subject and should not cloud her research.

Is all formatting and spelling correct?

There is one spelling error in the second sentence (incite should be insight), and the citation is in link form instead of citation form but I’m not sure if that’s required or not. Other than that all good.

'''Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added?'''

The information is current and not out of date and the source is from 2022. Possibly needs at least one more source because only one is added, or pulling more from the source used because the edits could benefit from a little expansion on details and examples.

Overall, I think this is a good addition to the article and shows a clear line from theory to practice, and is appropriate within the larger topic and adds context to the “Crime” section. With a little more expansion it’ll be good to go.