User talk:Sarahkimes/sandbox

Looking forword to learning more about Wikipedia this term!

Draft thoughts and suggestions
Hi Sarah!

After looking over your current draft, I do have just a couple of suggestions that might be helpful:
 * Try looking in both the CCC library databases and Google Scholar for additional studies and sources related to this topic. It is possible that you won't find an exact origin for this term or its practice. In that case, you might re-name that section something like "History of..." so you can still include the other background information you've gathered.
 * The only place where I have a sense that bias might be creeping in is in the "Who it helps" and "How it helps" sections. You might consider re-framing these to something like "Who utilizes experience-focused counseling" and "Theory behind experience-focused counseling".

I hope these notes help a little! Nicoleccc (talk) 02:06, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Peer review
Wow! Just looking at the original Wikipedia page and your sandbox I can tell you have put in a lot of work! Great job! I think you have a really great draft so far. I would suggest maybe paraphrasing your sentences a little more. I feel like you have a lot of information and some of the sentences are long and can be hard to follow. In your "Providers of Experience Counseling" I think it flows better if you flip the paragraphs, so start with listing the individual providers and then the agencies. The last thing I would suggest is cleaning up your references/sources. You seem to have tons of references, if you have directly used them of course keep them listed, but if some aren't as reliable or relevant I would delete them. Overall strong work Sarah!Mirandalgreen (talk) 01:10, 29 July 2018 (UTC)Miranda

!Mirandalgreen Thank you for the suggestions. The thoughts of my reviewers seem to be similar in that I should try to condense the writing. Sadly, I am finding this difficult because I cant seem to phrase or explain the treatment in a more relatable way without showing my bias as a current provider of Peer Support. The references I have in the sandbox will not all be in the final article posting, they are being used as guilds or possible sources for the article so they are only present until I am completely finished. Thanks for the review! Sarahkimes (talk) 05:42, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I can tell you've really put a lot of work into this! One suggestion I have, albeit potentially difficult to work on, is trying to make some of the information a bit easier to digest. I get that it's a pretty involved topic, so that may be difficult, but the sentences can be pretty dense and take a bit of effort to comprehend completely. Again, just do what you're able, sometimes you can't really explain detailed things in easier to understand terms. Another suggestion I have is adding more in-text links to other Wikipedia pages, such as under "2) Providers of Experience Counseling" you could potentially add some links to some of the peer supportive services listed, provided that they have Wikipedia pages, as that can be extremely convenient for people visiting the page. I'm really surprised by the massive amount of sources you have, it's abundantly clear you have good sources backing up your information for the most part. You seem to be missing a period at the end of the last sentence under "Who utilizes experience-focused counseling", and after the third sentence under "Training and Accreditations". Overall you seem to have done a very nice job so far! OdellZ17 (talk) 05:24, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

User:OdellZ17|OdellZ17 Thank you for the review. I have had another person tell me to condense the writing too, and have removed some small sentences and reworded it as best I can. Its hard because I am actually working in the field and provide this service, so I have to try to show no bias on something I believe in- its pretty challenging, so sticking to hard facts is the best way I can do that, which means I have a difficult time condensing.. I Really appreciate the feedback, and have (I think) corrected the grammatical issues you mention above. Sarahkimes (talk) 05:42, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Sarah,

Wow. Your article is amazing. So informational and straight to the point. My only advice would be to make sure you have the same template for he whole article. Its a cosmetic change. For example if point 1 is underlines and italic. Point two should be as well. Otherwise you did GREAT! Nadiabozhduga (talk) 18:01, 30 July 2018 (UTC)nadia bozhduga