User:Snoops292/Art therapy/Ambedia Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? Snoops292
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Snoops292/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Yes

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? None

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? The section on history can use a bit of modifications to express a more neutral tone. For example, changing phrases like "inspire resilience" "It invites" and "emerges as an upcoming field today."
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? The phrases above signal an appraisal to the profession.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? no
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Although I believe in the healing powers of art therapy I think that by making these changes you will have a more neutral tone.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, the efficiency section is a great add.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? You have found a section that was missing in the article and have contributed to it through the "efficiency" section.
 * How can the content added be improved? Only a minor edit, work on neutral tone.

Overall evaluation
Hi Isabelle,

I am impressed with your work so far. It looks like you've been working hard on adding to your articles. I really liked your content. I only have three comments to sum up my review:


 * 1) Layout: for the "history" section I am interested in how you will be inputting your content into the wiki page. A lot of your information for this section is introduced in the history section . For example, characters such as Adrian Hill and Margaret Nuamberg have been mentioned in the "Art Therapy" wiki page. Will this section be added as a paragraph or will you input each phrase accordingly into the already existing section?
 * 2) Layout: Is the "Efficiency" section a new subsection? I wanted to make sure because I assumed it was.
 * 3) Lastly, I want to say you've done a great job at referencing your articles!

I already mentioned the recommendation of making a few adjustments to make the tone of your article more neutral. If you have any questions on my suggestions feel free to reach out and I will gladly elaborate. I believe I will be reviewing your article again on a later date so if you want to run some new information by me or share information about what you will be adding shoot me an email!

Thank you for allowing me to peer review your articles,

Ambar