User:Sydrgalloway/Transpersonal psychology/Dennyslimon10 Peer Review

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


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Sydrgalloway/Transpersonal psychology
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Transpersonal psychology

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 any new content to the Lead.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?  The introductory sentence clearly describes the article's topic.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?  No, the Lead could use a little more information as it is only one sentence long.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?  The Lead does not include any information that is not present in the article, but the lead could perhaps be longer.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?  The Lead is very concise, maybe a little too concise.

Content

Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?  No new content has been added by my peer yet.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?  My peer hasn't added any new content, but more up to date information could be added to the article as a whole.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?  A little more sections and information could be added, such as more up to date information of how transpersonal psychology is today.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?  Yes, it addresses a topic that is very underrepresented as it is not very commonly talked discussed.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?  My peer hasn't added any new content, but does mention the article being written more on the negative aside, which I agree.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?  Some claims in the article do seem a little biased, they discuss the cons more than pros.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?  I viewpoints mentioned so far are equally discussed.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?  My peer hasn't added any new content, but the content in the article seems to make the reader focus more on the negative side than the positive which could use some work.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?  My peer has not added any new content, but the rest of the content in the article seems to be backed up my reliable sources.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)   Most of the content in the article 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.
 * Are the sources current?  Some sources are current, but perhaps more sources could be found.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?  Yes, there are 55 sources which is a good variety.
 * 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.)  The sources used are important and provide useful information, although this is a relatively new topic so sources can be scarce.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?  The few links I tried all seemed to work fine.

Organization

Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?  My peer has not added any new content.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?  My peer has not added any new content. But I did not notice any grammatical errors in the article.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?  My peer has not added any new content to the article. However, the content in the article seems to be well organized.

Images and Media

No images or media were added by my peer.

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

Response to peer review:
 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?  My peer has not added any new content.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?  My peer has not added any new content.
 * How can the content added be improved? The article as a whole could be improved. There is little information on the article making it relatively short. For example, the history section could definitely be longer and a few more different topics also.

Thank you for reviewing my Wiki article. Unfortunately, I fell behind and was struggling to keep up due to outside circumstances, so there wasn’t much to review from my end. Thank you for checking over my grammar and making sure it was correct! My article will be updated and complete within the upcoming week, so if there are more peer reviews there will be something to check over. Thank you!