User:Thatbaddie205/Sublimation (psychology)/Ajr1234 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(Thatbaddie205)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Thatbaddie205/Sublimation_%28psychology%29?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Sublimation (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.)


 * The content added is relevant to the topic because it is related to the id and superego. I do not know if the content added is up-to-date because there is no citation connected to the content. The content belongs however, there is no section above the information. The content added does not try to push the reader into a certain point of view, it reflects a neutral tone. the content addresses a topic that is not really studied in the field of psychology and it the information added fills in a gap about the superego, ego, and the id. The information describes how the ego works in combination with sublimation. The content added belongs to the article because it directly describes a concept.
 * The content added is presented in a neutral tone and it does not appear to be bias towards a certain position. There are no viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented and the content does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away rom another.
 * The new content is not backed by a source because there is no source added. I would suggest adding the source because with it there is no way to tell if the information is accurate or if it is current. Also adding a source would be beneficial because people will be able to tell if the information reflects the available literature on the topic. I would suggest adding the source and also finding other sources that feature a diverse group of authors and make sure the sources are peer-reviewed. Also, make sure to add a source with a link that works so that other readers can look and read the research that is available.
 * The content that added is concise and easy to understand and if it is included with the original article it will make information about superego, ego, and id easier. There are no grammatical or spelling errors in the new content and it appears to be well organized, however, it is hard to because it is not under a section of the article. I would suggest adding the information under the section called "Origin" because it seems like it is talking about the history and how it was developed.
 * The strengths of the content added is that it is easy to read and it related to the topic. However, some weakness are that there is not a source that is cited for the new content. I would strongly suggest adding a source because it will not only add to the credibility of your content. Also, I would suggest adding a section that relates to the new content because without there is no way to tell if it fits with the original information covered in the article. Also, make sure that the citations are current so that way it gives readers an up-to-date image of the topic. Furthermore, add the new content into the lead section o the article so that all parts of the article are covered. I would also suggest looking up information that looks at whether sublimation actually works in people and if it occurs in different populations, for example, children. Also, if there is conflicting information make sure to report to cover it in the draft so that there is no suspicion of bias. Overall, there is a lot of potential in this draft but some improvements need to made. I think this a very interesting topic that is not really talked about so this a great opportunity for readers to learn something new.