User talk:Kenzrkaz/Defence mechanism

Peer Review
Lead Section:

Your changes to the lead helped to clarify what the article will be about and add your contributions to the article. The topic sentence is clear and concise, and the description paragraph was edited to contain the major sections of the article according to your additions. In terms of being overly detailed, I believe that you should omit either the creators of the scales or what they do, as the lead paragraph you added contains information that is important, but is a little too lengthy for a brief introduction. For example, your new lead could look something like, "...the Defence Mechanism Rating Scale (DMRS) and Valliant's hierarchy of defense mechanisms have been used and modified for over 40 years to provide accurate numerical data on the state of a person's defensive functioning." This keeps the same relevant information while keeping it brief, where the important details can be mentioned later in their respective sections.

Content:

In terms of your other edits, I saw that they mostly consisted of grammatical error corrections and a major reconstruction of the "Relation with Coping" section. In terms of the changes to that section, the content added is up to date and relevant and on topic with the rest of the article. I do not believe this article addresses an equity gap, so that question is not relevant for this article. In terms of the relationship between defense mechanisms and coping, the information you contributed draws a clear bridge between the two to help the reader understand the connection.

Tone and Balance:

All content added is written in a neutral tone as to not persuade the reader. Bias does not seem to be present, and the information provided is intended for educational purpose only, not for means of attempting to have the reader lean towards one position or another. I do not see any issues in this section.

Sources and References:

All content added is backed by secondary sources that are seemingly reliable, and the content is reflective of the original sources information. There are a variety of new sources added, creating a thorough and fair representation of available current information. All links worked as intended. The only revision of this section I would recommend is removing the source number 23, as it is redundant to number 22.

Organization:

I had no problem reading and comprehending the added information as intended. Although there are no spelling errors, I believe there were a couple places the grammar could be cleaned up, such as in the following sentence, "As previously mentioned, defence mechanisms are carried out unconsciously, and attempt to resolve internal conflicts that often relate to our emotions," the comma between "unconsciously" and "and" could be removed, as it is not needed. Similarly, the final sentence of that paragraph could be broken up. For example, the revised section could look like, "The process of coping involves using logic and ration to stabilize negative emotions and stressors. This differs from defence, which is driven by impulse and urges. Other than those two minor tweaks, I believe the rest of the article is grammatically sound.

Images and Media:

There were no changes relevant to this prompt. Koof99 (talk) 16:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Final Takeaways:
 * The edits made do a good job at cleaning up errors from previous Wikipedians, as well as contributing to a new section with updated and relevant information. I was impressed with the number of new sources contributed to diversify the secondary sources used to created the article. In terms of further edits, I would just do a final rundown of the article to do a final check for any outstanding grammatical errors or wordy sentences. Otherwise, great job improving the article! Koof99 (talk) 16:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)