User talk:InikoThornell/Psychoanalytic dream interpretation

Iniko's Peer review by Ashley Ickes
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info
Whose work are you reviewing? InikoThornell Link to draft you're reviewing: User:InikoThornell/Psychoanalytic dream interpretation

Guiding questions:
Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The order of the first paragraph of the lead was edited to begin with an explicit definition of psychoanalytic dream interpretation. However, the rest of the lead seems to remain largely the same.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the first sentence concisely and clearly defines psychoanalytic dream interpretation, which sets the stage for further discussion of the topic.

Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The lead does provide a brief description of many of the article's major sections, especially sections related to different dream interpretation methods and therapeutic use. However, there is no clear preview in the lead to sections such as Robert Lang, Ernest Hartmann and Emotions, and Difficulties in Dream Interpretation. It may be helpful to add a sentence or two that briefly previews these sections.

Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? The lead does a good job of staying on topic and not discussing issues that are not relevant to the discussion of psychoanalytic dream interpretation.

Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? For the most part, the lead is concise, especially the first paragraph. At points, the second paragraph can become slightly hard to read and could benefit from more concise writing. Specifically, it may help to break up the last two sentences.

Lead evaluation
Within the lead, you do an excellent job of first making the definition and importance of psychoanalytic dream interpretation very clear from the first two sentences. Also, the lead previews many of the main topics in a concise manner. To improve the lead even further, the second paragraph could be edited to reduce ambiguity and wordiness as well as preview all of the topics addressed within the article. Adding sources throughout the lead may also help to improve the credibility of your statements and the article in general.

Guiding questions:
Is the content added relevant to the topic? All of the content within the article is highly relevant to the topic as it directly discusses different perspectives and approaches to psychoanalytic dream interpretation.

Is the content added up-to-date? As I am not really familiar with this topic, I am not sure if all of the content is up-to-date. The sources seem somewhat dated. However, this could simply be because this topic is somewhat historical.

Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? From my limited knowledge of this topic, I do not see any apparent holes in the content. The article does a good job of addressing a diverse set of perspectives and applications of psychoanalytic dream interpretation.

Content evaluation
Overall, I thought you did a really good job of separating this article into actionable chunks, which is an extremely helpful and substantial contribution. All of the content within your article seemed relevant and complete. Two overall suggestions I have for your subsections are (1) additional citations could help improve the credibility of your article and (2) be wary of old authors' opinionated statements throughout the article as these seem to be the reason the article was flagged. Below, I have listed some specific comments on each section to help with your future editing.


 * 1) Freudian Theory: You did an excellent job of reordering the previous material and adding small elements that made this theory much more understandable to the every day reader. This content seemed highly relevant, up-to-date, and free of any holes.
 * 2) Symbolic & Decoding Method: The symbolic and decoding section was clearly relevant. However, I am not sure how up-to-date this information is as the only article cited is from 1989. Has this method changed in recent years? Overall, I thought this section was very concise, clear, and easy to read.
 * 3) Robert Lang: One important note is that the title needs to be changed to Robert Langs, but nice job separating this section. Separation of this section makes it much easier to read and understand. Also, this section is relevant to the topic, up-to-date, and complete. If you wanted to make additional edits to this section, it would be helpful to break up many of the long sentences, particularly the second sentence in the second paragraph.
 * 4) Contemporary Psychoanalytic Approach: This section seems to remain unedited. Although you have made many substantial contributions to the article, this section's wording and citations present another area of opportunity in this paper.
 * 5) Dream Content & Continuity: Your change of the title and relocation of the second paragraph greatly add to the flow and understandability of this article.
 * 6) Ernest Hartmann & Emotions: Separation of this paragraph adds to the logical flow of ideas in this article.
 * 7) Dream Interpretation in Therapy: You improved the understandability and wordiness of this section by rewording many of the sentences. In addition, other authors' contributions seem to be much more credible and knowledgable within this section.
 * 8) Difficulties of Dream Interpretation: This section nicely combines the ideas from the final two sections of the original article into a more logical and concise section.

Guiding questions:
Is the content added neutral? All the content you added seems neutral, but the content from previous authors seems largely biased and in need of editing. If you were interested in making additional edits to the page, some aspects of the previous writers' wording seem opinionated and argumentative.

Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? All of your claims seem neutral and unbiased. However, many of the previous authors' statements are not. Below, I have listed some specific sections and statements that could benefit from editing.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? You did a really great job of representing a wide variety of viewpoints and approaches in this article.

Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? None of the content seems persuasive. However, I would characterize some of the previous authors' statements as opinionated because they jump to many unsupported conclusions.

Tone and balance evaluation
Overall, I thought you did a great job of adding neutral statements that improved the flow of this article. However, previous authors' contributions threaten the neutrality of this article by using opinionated statements. According to the Wikipedia statement at the top of the article, these opinionated statements seem to be the main reason this article has been flagged for editing. If you would like to further contribute to the article by eliminating bias, I have listed some statements and sections that could use editing to improve neutrality:
 * Symbolic & Decoding Method: You may want to consider eliminating some opinionated comments within this section. For instance, you could consider removing phrases, such as "narrower view" and "presents many challenges."
 * Contemporary Psychoanalytic Approach: Statements addressing what contemporary analysts believe or should do could be somewhat problematic and need to be shifted to a less argumentative tone.
 * Dream Content & Continuity: In all three paragraphs, the original authors seem to assert many of their opinions without clear citations.

Guiding questions:
Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No new references were provided with the added content.  Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? With 32 sources, the references cited in this article are thorough.

Are the sources current? The sources seem to be somewhat outdated with the most recent source from 2008.

'''Check a few links. Do they work?''' After checking several links, most of the current references work.

Sources and references evaluation
From my end, it does not appear that you have added any new references. Although the references from previous authors seem to be thorough and reliable, many of the sources in this article need to be updated as the most recent article is from 2008 and most of the other articles are from the 1990s or early 2000s. After reading through the article, I identified sections that are lacking many needed citations. If you are interested in adding references as part of your contribution, I have listed the sections below:


 * Freudian Theory: all
 * Contemporary Psychoanalytic Approach: all; especially the quote at the end of paragraph 2 and the entirety of the last paragraph
 * Dream Content and Continuity: all
 * Difficulties in Dream Interpretation: all

Guiding questions:
Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content you added greatly adds to the clarity, understandability, and readability of this article.

Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? I did not run into any prominent grammatical or spelling errors when reading your article. Great job!

Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Throughout the article, you did a really good of breaking up the previous article in more logical chunks. Again, great job!

Organization evaluation
Your organizational edits substantially contribute to this article. Specifically, breaking up sections, such as other approaches and the contemporary psychoanalytic approach, and condensing the last two sections greatly adds to the flow and understandability of this article. Also, slight changes in wording greatly add to the flow of the article.

Guiding questions:
Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? What are the strengths of the content added? How can the content added be improved?
 * I answered all of the following questions below.

Overall evaluation
Overall, the organizational elements you have added to this article greatly contribute to the article's quality. Separating, reordering, and rewording sections improves the logical flow and understandability of the article. However, if time allows, this article could benefit from changes in tone and the addition of citations throughout. Edits in these two areas would help fix both the neutrality and credibility concerns that this article was flagged for. Great job on your draft, I really enjoyed reading it!

Ashleyickes (talk) 02:51, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Salter feedback
Re-organizing a wiki page is not an easy task and you do a good job of highlighting important topics with new sections/subheading titles. I echo many of the suggestions offered in the peer review. Be sure to edit for any typos (e.g., Robert Lang; add commas where needed) and work on neutralizing the previous text (it's okay to change other people's text to improve the neutrality of the article--this is one of the problems identified by wikipedia). Lastly, are there any updated citations that can be added? I think the most recent work is from 2011 (which is okay), but are there any new developments (or criticisms) that would be good for a Wiki audience to know?