User:Thatbaddie205/Sublimation (psychology)/Ctom1999 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
Hey Amber,

After looking through the draft, I've made some notes on what additions/edits that you can make to the article.


 * LEAD
 * I think there's a lot of information that needs to be added to the lead. As it stands, practically all of the relevant information covered in the article such as "Sexual sublimation", findings from Jacques Lacan, and "Empirical research" are absent within the Lead. If these are covered in the article body, they must be summarized here as well.
 * The second portion of the Lead detailing Freud's findings on sublimation needs a rework. Firstly, there is too much information that is hyper specific too Freud and the background of sublimation. Keep in mind that the goal of the Lead is to summarize the content in the article body. Secondly, the last sentence should either be edited or deleted. Wade and Travis (who are not identified by first name, making it harder to know who they are) aren't mentioned anywhere else in the article. As such, this information shouldn't be in the Lead, unless you plan on finding information relating to them that you plan on adding.
 * CONTENT
 * From what I can see, most of the content in the article isn't relevant. The biggest offender is this regard is the "In Fiction" section. Because this is meant to be an article that addresses the scientific findings and history surrounding sublimation, how the phenomenon appears outside of these confines is wholly irrelevant and should probably be deleted.
 * Beyond relevancy, much of the content is not recent either. This mainly seems due to the fact that many of the sources used to build the article come from journals of Jacques Lacan, dating back to the 1950-1960s. I would suggest branching out from these sources to find more meaningful and up to date information.
 * The empirical research section is too brief. Given that this is an article meant to assess research findings about sublimation, there should be much more written here. I suggest looking for sources that detail studies on sublimation or processes related to sublimation. Perhaps a worse offender in this regard is the "Origins" section of the article. Nothing there actually delves into the history of research regarding sublimation, so the information that is present currently needs to be deleted and replaced with relevant information.
 * Too much of the current article is built from direct quotations. While this isn't a bad thing per say (especially since they are properly cited), the goal of an article should be to provide a concise view of the body of knowledge for a subject. I think summarizing (without plagiarizing) information instead of using direct quotes would aid in that process.
 * Because so little information in the present article covers any substantive and current findings, no equity gaps in research are actually explained. We looking for sources, perhaps it would be good to look for sublimation in relation to people of color, women, disabled persons, and other underrepresented demographics.
 * The "See also" section may need to be edited or simply deleted outright. Much of the links to different articles seem to be more descriptive of the occult and magic, rather than to concepts and information actually described in the article that may be further expounded upon elsewhere.
 * SOURCES AND REFERENCES
 * As stated, the biggest problem with sources currently is their age. Over half of the listed sources come from Freud and Lacan, of whose work in the formers case is approaching a century since publication, and the latter of which had his works published in the 1950s and 1960s. Aside from this, many of the other sources come from either the early to mid 2000s, or the early 2010s. I would say a good place to start when looking for sources is too find articles that are no older than 5-6 years.
 * PERSONAL IMPRESSION
 * In the draft, I've seen you've added extra context to a sentence, but I'm not sure of where this information is intended to be placed. Is this going to be part of Lead or something else?