User:SpeedReader&GrammarEnthusiast/Nonverbal learning disorder/Psychologylearner1 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

SpeedReader&GrammarEnthusiast (Sarah Kane)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User SpeedReader&GrammarEnthusiast/Nonverbal_learning_disorder?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Nonverbal learning disorder
 * Nonverbal learning disorder

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead

-       You are editing the lead section, which I appreciate. I think the information you edited is more concise and grammatically correct. I would say though, though I’m not sure how you would do this, but I do not know specifically what half of the words in the lead actually mean. I can infer and get a general picture, but those clinical terms make it hard for the average reader to connect with the subject material. The lead does do a good job at generalizing the topic though. The lead section doesn’t necessarily mention the other sections, but I think the cause and diagnosis could really be added if there is a DSM diagnosis/ there is one sentence for Cause that could be added to the lead. I would suggest fleshing out the lead a little more to include that knowledge as well as some of the further reading suggestions.

Content

-       Your content is relevant to the topic for sure. I think your edits are well thought out and I can tell you really care about making these edits as impactful as you can. The content you’ve added creates more specific and clarifying word choices that enhance the reader’s experience. Referencing the article in its entirety, I would like to see some expansion on this topic. The Cause section is a sentence, and while it is an incredibly easy to understand sentence, I do think there should be more information. Again, some of the word choices create a barrier between the average reader and this article, and while I know the layman’s description of these words, I am also an avid learner of psychology. Your average reader might become overwhelmed reading all these technical terms, especially in "concerned research mode" (which I think would be the main cause of traffic for this page). The article doesn’t do much to talk about how this syndrome distributes itself throughout the population, and/ or if there is a particular prevalence within a certain population or under certain conditions. I think it would add an interesting viewpoint if data existed citing the reactions and intervention rates of marginalized communities vs non marginalized communities when recognizing and diagnosing this syndrome. I appreciated that you already wanted to add a culture section; however, I would challenge you to go beyond only stigma and awareness. I would also suggest moving the history section to follow the lead and moving further reading to before the references, if possible. Lastly, I would maybe suggest adding a subsection for co-morbidities under diagnosis instead of just adding it to the other diagnosis information.

Tone and Balance

-       Your added edits are very clinically influenced and non-bias. Truly most of the article is the same way. It is an info dump and nothing more. As stated previously, I would suggest expanding the Cause section. Every other subject in the article is well represented though.

Sources and References

-       Your sources are very solid sources. One is from an overseeing board of the syndrome and the other is a literature review. The sources you referenced do include the information that was mentioned. One of your sources is recent, most likely representing up to date information; however, the other source is almost 10 years old. I would almost guarantee the information on diagnosing children with NLD has been updated since. The links you provided work for me. Most of the researchers seem to be non-marginalized people based on the info I was able to find, but I did see a traditionally Hispanic last name included.

Organization

-       I mentioned a couple of organizational suggestions earlier, but to reiterate, I would add a Co-Morbidity subsection under the Diagnosis section. I would also expand the Cause section. I would also move the History section to right after the Lead section. As I stated earlier as well, the article is well written and information, but it is a bit more clinical. Comprehension will be difficult for the average reader. I did not see any grammar or spelling errors in the article, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t any. Your addition didn’t have any grammatical or spelling errors. I would condense some of the information to not be so heavy, some sentences are difficult to get through.

Images and Media

-       There is only one image in the article and it was added by a member of Wikipedia as “own image”. The picture is well captioned. I don’t know if there are any other images that would enhance the article other than maybe pictures of the Authors that have NVLD. That would be my only suggestion.

Overall Impression

-       I appreciated the edits you made, as they added clarity to the subject. I would suggest going through and maybe revise some of the other bulky sections in a similar fashion. As suggested by you and earlier, this article could be enhanced by cultural relevance and maybe how this disorder might be underdiagnosed or misdiagnosed in marginalized communities. I think data on how this syndrome presents in different ways would enrich this article if these symptoms are on a spectrum as seems to be the consensus. The strengths of this content are that it is well thought out and that the topic’s info page was already well fleshed out, a good foundation. Overall, good subject choice and I look forward to reading more of your edits.