User talk:Katiefitz18/sandbox

What does the article (or section) do well? I really like your article! I didn't have any clue what psychedelic therapy was beforehand, but this was super comprehensive in all 3 of the sections. I think the 3 sections that you do have make a lot of sense with the organization of the article.

What changes would you suggest overall? Some sections might have too much information? I felt a bit overwhelmed in the History section, so maybe dividing the different subsections into more paragraphs would help with that. I'm also not sure whether it makes more sense to put methods or applications first? If some of the methods are specific to certain applications, it might make more sense to put methods first, but I think the article still makes sense the way it is right now.

I also think potentially doing another section about controversies specifically would be really interesting to read. It could also help with moving some information out of the text heavy sections.

What is the most important thing that the author could do to improve his/her contribution? I think the article is good as is, but tightening up some of the blocks of text would be helpful, as well as adding images. Etc cyt (talk) 15:19, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I am going to edit the sections in a concise way and add images. I'm also going to add a section about the tourism regarding psychedelic drugs — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katiefitz18 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 28 February 2020 (UTC)