User:Twalton1996/Reverse psychology/Whitb05 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Twalton1996


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Reverse psychology


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Reverse psychology

Evaluate the drafted changes
No content was added by my peer, the introduction is concise. But, I will say that the article does need more work. The article ha information missing like the history section among other important sections. Most content in the article is relevant to the topic. Most content is also up-to-date. The article seems neutral. Most content is backed up by reliable sources. What would improve this article is more important sections about reverse psychology and citing.