This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.
- Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)
- Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Mfs2162/sandbox
Guiding questions:
- Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
- it is an existing content
- Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
- yes
- Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
- yes
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- no
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
- concise
Since you are improving an existing section, there's not much that needed to be done. You added citations that were lacking before which is great. But you may want to be more clear who the pronouns are referring to when you're writing.
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added relevant to the topic?
- yes
- Is the content added up-to-date?
- yes
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
- no
- Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
- yes, the editor added Sigmund Freud into the chart.
There wasn't much content change that I saw, you added Sigmund Freud, but maybe use one or two more sentences to describe his contribution in the chart. And also you can elaborate and added a section after Piaget's theory detailing Freud's psychosexual development theory.
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added neutral?
- yes
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- no
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- no
- Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
- no
The tone is overall very neutral, except for some adjectives like "inexorably".
Guiding questions:
- Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- yes
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- yes
- Are the sources current?
- yes
- Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
- yes
- Check a few links. Do they work?
- yes
The 3 new added sources all seem good, but you might want to add more for Lev Vygotsky and Jean Piaget in the chart.
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
- yes
- Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
- no
- Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
- yes
The new content fits well into what the page had before, but I suggest you work on making some more substantial changes.
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media
- Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
- Are images well-captioned?
- Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
- Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
No images or media added.
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.
- Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
- How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
- Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
- Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
Not a new article.
Guiding questions:
- Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
- yes
- What are the strengths of the content added?
- You added a missing important piece in the section "historical origins".
- How can the content added be improved?
- You can elaborate a bit more about Sigmund Freud's contribution both in the chart and below.
Great first try! But it seems like there's not much to improve on this section since it's fairly developed already, so you might want to pick one or two more sections to work on improving. I noticed the section related to neuroscience is underdeveloped, you might want to start there. Or if you are interested in language acquisition or bilingualism, those two small sections under "speculated core systems of cognition" might worth looking at too.
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.
- Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)
- Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Mfs2162/sandbox
Guiding questions:
- Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
- it is an existing content
- Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
- yes
- Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
- yes
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- no
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
- concise
Since you are improving an existing section, there's not much that needed to be done. You added citations that were lacking before which is great. But you may want to be more clear who the pronouns are referring to when you're writing.
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added relevant to the topic?
- yes
- Is the content added up-to-date?
- yes
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
- no
- Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
- yes, the editor added Sigmund Freud into the chart.
There wasn't much content change that I saw, you added Sigmund Freud, but maybe use one or two more sentences to describe his contribution in the chart. And also you can elaborate and added a section after Piaget's theory detailing Freud's psychosexual development theory.
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added neutral?
- yes
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- no
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- no
- Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
- no
The tone is overall very neutral, except for some adjectives like "inexorably".
Guiding questions:
- Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- yes
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- yes
- Are the sources current?
- yes
- Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
- yes
- Check a few links. Do they work?
- yes
The 3 new added sources all seem good, but you might want to add more for Lev Vygotsky and Jean Piaget in the chart.
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
- yes
- Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
- no
- Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
- yes
The new content fits well into what the page had before, but I suggest you work on making some more substantial changes.
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media
- Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
- Are images well-captioned?
- Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
- Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
No images or media added.
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.
- Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
- How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
- Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
- Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
Not a new article.
Guiding questions:
- Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
- yes
- What are the strengths of the content added?
- You added a missing important piece in the section "historical origins".
- How can the content added be improved?
- You can elaborate a bit more about Sigmund Freud's contribution both in the chart and below.
Great first try! But it seems like there's not much to improve on this section since it's fairly developed already, so you might want to pick one or two more sections to work on improving. I noticed the section related to neuroscience is underdeveloped, you might want to start there. Or if you are interested in language acquisition or bilingualism, those two small sections under "speculated core systems of cognition" might worth looking at too.