User:Sarahmoran683/Applied behavior analysis/Dennyslimon10 Peer Review

General info
User:Sarahmoran683
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Sarahmoran683/Applied behavior analysis
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Applied behavior analysis

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead

Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?  My peer did not add anything to the lead, but did add to other sections of the article.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?  Yes, the introductory sentence is very easy to follow and read.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?  Yes, the lead includes a brief description of the article's major sections. Perhaps the lead could mention in one sentence who ABA could be traced back to.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?  No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?  I think the lead is very concise and easy to understand. It is not overly detailed either.

Content

Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?  Yes, the content added is relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?  Yes, the content added is up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?  I think all of the content added is useful information.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?  No, it does not deal with any of Wikipedia's equity gaps. Autism is the medical condition mentioned the most, but Autism is talked about very frequently.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?  The content added is very useful and makes some great points. My peer added a source that was needed.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?  My peer mentioned the article overall seeming a little biased and written in a negative connotation, after reading it myself I agree.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?  Yes, the uses of ABA is very underrepresented. ABA being used for Autism is very overrepresented. It would be useful to include other disorders that ABA could potentially be used for.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?  No, the content added does not attempt to persuade the reader in any way.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?  Some content is not backed up my a reliable sources, however, my peer has noticed this and mentioned it in ther article draft.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)  Yes, the content accurately reflects what the cited sources say.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?  Yes, the sources are thorough and provide plenty of useful information.
 * Are the sources current?  Yes, the courses are current. Some sources are even as recent as 2022.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?  Yes, there are a total of 159 sources which are all different.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)  I believe the sources used are good.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?  Yes, the few links I attempted all worked.

Organization

Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?  Yes, the content added is concise, clear, and easy to read. It is also very useful information.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?  No, I did not notice and grammatical or spelling errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?  Yes, the content added is well-organized.

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, my peer noticed where some sources were missing and added them.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?  The content added makes amazing points, especially how the article seems to kind of negative and biased. It is good my peer noticed this because work on Wikipedia should remain neutral and relatively positive.
 * How can the content added be improved? One way I think the article could be improved would be on changing the wording of some of the headings for sections. For example, I do not particularly like the heading "views of the autistic community", it seems kind of negative.