User talk:Dhenderson21/sandbox

Parlaysia's peer-review: It has reliable sources also it identifies where its from. I like that the information is organized its not overly cluttered with information. To improve the article I suggest that you have more information on your topic that gives you other contrasting issues with the study. Did any research done previously have a main focus highlight that as one of your headings. Did your articles give more information that helps the study or doesn't help the study grow as a whole. I suggest that you make clear headings for your topic, what information does the reader need to know about this topic? I suggest you go into further detail about your topic and check for nobility and validity of the study. I noticed that the article really focused in on the sources and where it came from I think I can benefit from adding that into my own article.Peakeparlaysia 18:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Kevin McHugh (talk) 14:59, 15 November 2018 (UTC)Kevin McHugh Peer Review
The article clearly displays what compassion focused psychotherapy and how it originated. What is currently in the sandbox is a good lead section that displays an in-depth summary of the phycology topic. One suggestion would be to create more sections about the article. For example, you may have a section on the history of the therapy and another on the limitations of the therapy. The content of the article is neutral and does not contain any biases, just make sure to insert in-text citations to your final article. Finally, I would just go a little more in-depth, or even create a separate section for this, about what research has been done to "demonstrate the importance of compassion as a way of directing behavior to deal with threat's and resolve conflict"  Other than those suggestions the article is well done and I really like the in-depth summary, which is something I want to include in my teams article.